TaskRail

check_products_compatibility

Check whether two exact products are compatible. Use for requests like “will this fit,” “does this work with,” “compatible with,” or “is an adapter needed?” It checks identifiers and source-backed specifications for accessories, parts, consumables, chargers, cables, mounts, batteries, computer components, and automotive parts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vehicle_vin`	No	Optional 17-character VIN for authoritative NHTSA vehicle identification
`required_use`	No	Optional explanation of the intended use
`primary_product`	Yes	The product, device, vehicle, or system the candidate must work with
`candidate_product`	Yes	The accessory, part, consumable, adapter, or component being checked

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`decision`	Yes
`freshness`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`source_names`	Yes
`best_price_usd`	No
`recommendation`	Yes
`sources_failed`	Yes
`sources_checked_count`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds that it 'checks identifiers and source-backed specifications,' which enriches understanding of the tool's internal behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, example queries, and scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a query tool with output schema present, description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what inputs are involved. No gaps given context signals (no enums, no nested objects).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'products compatibility' with clear examples like 'will this fit' and 'does this work with'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on deals, alternatives, or completion paths.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly prescribes use cases ('will this fit,' 'compatible with') and lists covered categories (accessories, parts, etc.). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are clearly unrelated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TaskRail tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool covers a distinct purpose: compatibility checking, new product deals, used alternatives, and task procedures. No overlap in functionality, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case with a verb-noun pattern, e.g., check_products_compatibility, find_best_total_deal. Minor variance in noun phrase length (e.g., find_used_or_refurbished_alternatives is longer) but overall consistent.

Tool Count4/5

With only 4 tools, the set is compact but focused. It covers the core actions for product shopping and task guidance without unnecessary bloat. Could benefit from a broader scope, but count is reasonable for the niche.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover key product lifecycle phases: compatibility, new and used purchasing, and after-sales tasks. Missing general product search or reviews, but the core workflow (compare, buy, complete task) is well-served.

Resources

Need Help?