DatoQA

reconcile_tables

Read-only

Compare orders/invoices, inventory exports, catalogue attributes or CRM versions. Free preview of an exact-key one-to-one comparison of two explicitly mapped CSV/JSON tables. Runnable synthetic input: https://datoqa.bhazarstudio.workers.dev/examples/cases.json (reconcile_tables). Complete dossier: 0.002 USDC on Base, JSON and CSV together. Maximum 500 combined rows and 48000 argument bytes. Default mode=amounts compares quantities with identical declared units and net/gross amounts (amount_basis and full mappings required). Use mode=fields for catalogue, inventory or CRM version comparison: each side maps keys only, and fields explicitly pairs left/right column names. No amount_basis, financial mapping, tolerances or FX options in fields mode. Returns added/removed rows and changed field values; exact normalized strings, null distinct from empty text, decimal spellings remain distinct. At most 19 compared fields, empty snapshots supported. Unmapped fields/schema changes ignored; no synchronization or inferred changes. Optional target_currency uses dated indicative ECB references (original data free). Never guess keys, aggregate split invoices or infer payment status. Ambiguous/invalid/incomparable rows block purchase. Ordinary differences and unmatched valid rows are findings. Save the private encrypted ticket before any optional purchase; MCP never signs or pays. Confirmed purchases recoverable for 24h from preview; pending settlement needs operator review, never repay.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`left`	Yes
`mode`	No
`right`	Yes
`fields`	No
`rounding`	No
`amount_basis`	No
`target_currency`	No
`amount_tolerance`	No
`quantity_tolerance`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`offer`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`ticket`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`purchasable`	Yes
`deliverables`	Yes
`blocking_issues`	Yes
`blocking_issues_truncated`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / amount_tolerance / default
```
Removed value: -"0"
```

addedInput schema / properties / fields

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "left": {
+        "maxLength": 64,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "right": {
+        "maxLength": 64,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "left",
+      "right"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 19,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / left / properties / mapping / required

Previous value: -[
-  "keys",
-  "amount",
-  "currency",
-  "quantity",
-  "unit"
-]New value: +[
+  "keys"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / mode

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "amounts",
+    "fields"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / quantity_tolerance / default
```
Removed value: -"0"
```

changedInput schema / properties / right / properties / mapping / required

Previous value: -[
-  "keys",
-  "amount",
-  "currency",
-  "quantity",
-  "unit"
-]New value: +[
+  "keys"
+]

removedInput schema / properties / rounding / default
```
Removed value: -"half_even"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "left",
-  "right",
-  "amount_basis"
-]New value: +[
+  "left",
+  "right"
+]

AddedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds a great deal beyond the annotations: hard limits (500 rows, 48000 argument bytes, 19 fields), exact normalization semantics (null distinct from empty text, decimal spellings preserved), ignored unmapped fields, and that ambiguous/incomparable rows block a purchase. It also discloses the preview/purchase/ticket lifecycle and the 24h recovery window, which annotations alone cannot convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and limits are front-loaded, but the paragraph is very dense and mixes pricing/lifecycle, limits, mode routing, normalization, and error policy across many sentences without structure. Several clauses (URL, USDC price, ticket recovery) crowd the operational guidance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool this complex it is largely complete: limits, modes, normalization rules, non-synchronization behavior, and failure conditions are all stated, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The residual gap is the undocumented numeric/column options noted under parameter semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the semantics, and it does for the important ones: mode selection, required amount_basis/full mappings in amounts mode, key-only mappings in fields mode, and ECB-based target_currency. It leaves rounding, amount_tolerance, quantity_tolerance, and the per-column options (trim, uppercase, null_token, date_format) unaddressed, so it does not fully compensate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('exact-key one-to-one comparison of two explicitly mapped CSV/JSON tables') and enumerates concrete domains (orders/invoices, inventory exports, catalogue attributes, CRM versions). An agent can distinguish it from validate_table on the sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly routes between mode=amounts (orders/invoices with amount_basis and financial mappings) and mode=fields (catalogue/inventory/CRM with explicit left/right field pairs), and states what each mode requires. It does not name the sibling tools it should be preferred over, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All DatoQA 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?