store

Check Photo Compatibility

check_photo_compatibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether supplied pixel dimensions meet the print-contract 120 DPI hard gate used by upload. Returns per-size required_px. Crop and artefacts are still reviewed in the configurator. With a delivery country, also lists market-visible wall formats. If width/height are omitted, reports that suitability cannot be verified without dimensions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`width`	No	Photo width in pixels
`format`	No	Image format (e.g. 'jpeg', 'png', 'heic', 'webp')
`height`	No	Photo height in pixels
`country`	No	Delivery country as ISO alpha-2 or alpha-3. Required before market-visible print formats can be shown.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`photo`	No
`market`	No
`country`	No
`message`	No
`format_note`	No
`launch_gate`	No
`recommendation`	No
`review_factors`	No
`_response_budget`	No
`assessment_status`	No
`configurator_note`	No
`resolution_status`	No
`recommended_format`	No
`resolution_by_size`	No
`available_print_formats`	No
`compatibility_determined`	No
`supported_upload_formats`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses the 120 DPI contract rule, per-size required_px output, country-dependent behavior, and the fallback behavior when dimensions are omitted. This is rich behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences with each one adding a distinct piece of information: core purpose, return type, scope boundary, country behavior, and omission caveat. No filler.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters. It covers the central rule, optional behavior, exclusions, and edge case.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by explaining that omission of width/height is allowed but results in an unverifiable report, and that country enables market-visible wall formats.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete resource: whether pixel dimensions meet the 120 DPI hard gate used by upload. It also differentiates itself by clarifying that crop and artefact review happen in the configurator, not here.

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?

It implies when this tool is relevant for upload compatibility checking and points to the configurator for crop/artefact concerns. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the context makes the boundary clear.

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

All store 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools hdistinct purposes, but search_products/search_products_task and check_photo_compatibility/check_photo_compatibility_task are direct-versus-task duplications of the same functionality. The descriptions note that one is task-based, so agents can tell them apart, but the overlap could still cause miselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_phnoun pattern (get_, search_, check_, compare_, start_); task variants follow the same naming convention with a clear `_task` suffix. The convention is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count4/5

11 tools is within a reasonable range for a store assistant, and the scope covers discovery, comparison, recommendations, shipping, policies, and configuration. The two direct/task variant pairs add slight redundancy, making it feel a bit heavier than needed.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core storefront workflows: product discovery/details, comparisons, recommendations, reviews, shipping, policies, photo compatibility, and configuration links. Snissing cart, checkout, or order-status tools feels acceptable if the server is scoped as a pre-purchase assistant, though those would be natural complements.

Resources

Need Help?