SkoIA Parts

Inspect compatibility evidence

get_compatibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares two canonical ProductTwins. It reports direct compatibility only when their verified interface system matches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`productA`	Yes
`productB`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`facts`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 1,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / maximum
```
Removed value: -1
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / minimum
```
Removed value: -0
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / type
```
Removed value: -"number"
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool reports direct compatibility only on a verified interface match, and it operates on canonical ProductTwins, not arbitrary products. No contradiction 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words; the core action is front-loaded and the qualifying condition follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-required-parameter comparison tool with safety annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks only a brief pointer to sibling tools or a note about non-match behavior, but those are not essential for invocation.

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 descriptions are 0% and parameter names are only productA/productB with syntactic patterns. The description adds semantic meaning by calling them canonical ProductTwins and tying the result to verified interface systems, but it does not explain ID format or how to obtain eligible ProductTwins.

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 a specific verb ('Compares') and names the resource ('two canonical ProductTwins'), then clarifies the exact condition for a positive result ('direct compatibility only when their verified interface system matches'). This distinguishes it from broader search/fit/offer siblings even without naming them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: call it to check direct compatibility between two canonical ProductTwins. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the 14 sibling tools, so an agent must infer selection.

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

All SkoIA Parts 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?