zFinia Intelligence

Data Compatibility Checker

data_compatibility_checker

Gate caller-supplied field contracts before ingestion, migration, CI, or machine-to-machine handoff; returns compatible plus stable incompatibility codes. Does not fetch data. Pay 3000 atomic USDC on Base via exact x402. MCP does not pay.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_fields`	Yes
`target_fields`	Yes
`comparison_mode`	No
`canonicalization`	No
`contract_version`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issues`	Yes
`compatible`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes	Delivery request identifier; also returned in x-foundry-request-id.
`service_id`	Yes	Canonical service identifier.
`assumptions`	Yes
`issue_count`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`remediations`	Yes
`comparison_mode`	Yes
`service_version`	Yes	Version of the invoked service.
`canonicalization`	Yes
`contract_version`	Yes
`checked_source_fields`	Yes
`checked_target_fields`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / source_fields / example

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "name": "id",
-    "nullable": false,
-    "required": true,
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "order_id",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "customer_id",
+    "nullable": true,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "amount_cents",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "created_at",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / target_fields / example

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "name": "id",
-    "nullable": false,
-    "required": true,
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "order_id",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "customer_id",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "amount_cents",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "currency",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "created_at",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 11, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Delivery request identifier; also returned in x-foundry-request-id.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / service_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Canonical service identifier.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / service_version

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Version of the invoked service.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "contract_version",
-  "comparison_mode",
-  "canonicalization",
-  "compatible",
-  "issue_count",
-  "issues",
-  "remediations",
-  "checked_source_fields",
-  "checked_target_fields",
-  "assumptions",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "request_id",
+  "service_id",
+  "service_version",
+  "contract_version",
+  "comparison_mode",
+  "canonicalization",
+  "compatible",
+  "issue_count",
+  "issues",
+  "remediations",
+  "checked_source_fields",
+  "checked_target_fields",
+  "assumptions",
+  "limitations"
+]

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / canonicalization / example
```
Added value: +"exact"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comparison_mode / example
```
Added value: +"backward_compatible"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / contract_version / example
```
Added value: +"1"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / source_fields / example
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "id",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / target_fields / example
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "id",
+    "nullable": false,
+    "required": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
```
First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it does not fetch data and specifies a payment requirement (3000 atomic USDC on Base via exact x402) and that MCP does not pay. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any other side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, data-fetch negative, and payment requirement. It is dense and front-loaded, with no fluff, though slightly jargon-heavy. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers purpose, usage contexts, and payment, but omits parameter semantics and details about the output codes. An output schema exists, which may mitigate return-value explanation, but the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple enums) suggests the description should clarify what the incompatibility codes mean and how to interpret them. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of any parameters (source_fields, target_fields, comparison_mode, canonicalization, contract_version). While the schema has enums and examples, the description fails to add semantic meaning to these inputs, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 states a specific action ('Gate caller-supplied field contracts') with clear contexts (ingestion, migration, CI, M2M handoff) and an explicit outcome (returns compatible plus stable incompatibility codes). It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which target unrelated domains (accessibility, outcome routing, machine economy, contract regression, catalog evidence).

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?

The description gives explicit use cases ('before ingestion, migration, CI, or machine-to-machine handoff') and even notes a non-use ('Does not fetch data'), which prevents misuse. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or when not to use this tool beyond that single negative, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

All zFinia Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?