Skip to main content
Glama

Goods Classification

goods_classify
Read-only

Classify goods for export control from a description (or HS code).

Bilingual (English / Russian, auto-detected) goods classifier. Returns the best-matching HS code (with EN+RU descriptions), related ECCNs, control reasons (NS, MT, NP, CB, AT...), an export-control level (high/medium/low/ none), a confidence score, and alternative matches for review.

This is destination-agnostic — it identifies WHAT the goods are and whether they are controlled in principle. To get the license decision FOR A SPECIFIC destination, pass the result into export_controls_screen.

IMPORTANT, the matcher is lexical, and confidence scores the strength of the string match, not the correctness of the classification: "equipment" returns semiconductor manufacturing equipment at confidence 1.0. Treat the code as a suggestion for narrowing the question. When no hs_code was supplied the result carries classification_basis and classification_confidence_note; read them before quoting any code, and ask the user for the HS code or ECCN on their shipping documentation.

Examples: goods_classify("uranium centrifuge") # → HS 840120, ECCN 0B001 goods_classify("центрифуга для обогащения урана") # Russian query, same result goods_classify("semiconductor manufacturing equipment") goods_classify("", hs_code="840120") # direct HS lookup

Use case: 'Is a semiconductor lithography machine export-controlled?'

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hs_codeNoOptional known HS code (4 or 6 digits) for a direct lookup.
languageNoOptional hint: "en" or "ru" (auto-detected if omitted).
descriptionYesGoods description, at least 2 characters (e.g. "uranium centrifuge", "центрифуга для урана").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Added value: +"Goods description, at least 2 characters (e.g. \"uranium centrifuge\", \"центрифуга для урана\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / hs_code / description
      Added value: +"Optional known HS code (4 or 6 digits) for a direct lookup."
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / description
      Added value: +"Optional hint: \"en\" or \"ru\" (auto-detected if omitted)."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds substantive behavioral context: the matcher is lexical, confidence measures string-match strength not correctness, and unclassified results carry classification_basis and classification_confidence_note that must be read before quoting a code. That is exactly the kind of caveat annotations 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose and routing rule, then caveats, then examples. Every section earns its place, though the return-value enumeration is partly redundant given an output schema exists and adds length.

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 3-parameter bilingual classifier, the definition covers scope, destination-agnostic boundary, matcher limitations, confidence interpretation, and fallback behavior when no HS code is supplied. Nothing needed to invoke or trust the output is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by showing the empty-description + hs_code direct-lookup pattern and noting bilingual auto-detection, which gives practical meaning to the optional parameters rather than just restating them.

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 (classify) and resource (goods for export control) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it is destination-agnostic and pointing to export_controls_screen for the license decision. Also enumerates the returned artifacts (HS code, ECCNs, control reasons, level, confidence, alternatives).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the alternative (export_controls_screen) and the condition that selects it, explains the destination-agnostic vs destination-specific split, and clarifies the hs_code lookup path. Examples cover EN, RU and direct-lookup invocation.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources