Jithox EU Import Preflight

Search candidate TARIC classifications

search_taric_codes

Read-only

From a plain-language product description, return CANDIDATE TARIC/CN codes from a dated TARIC snapshot, ranked with the evidence used. Returns 'needs_review' (candidates to confirm) or 'unavailable' when no snapshot is provisioned — never an invented code. Classifications/measures are CANDIDATES for a declarant to confirm; only a BTI binds. TARIC carries no national VAT/excise — those are separate. Every result carries its source, retrieval time and validity window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`knownProperties`	No	Optional known attributes (material, use, form).
`productDescription`	No	Plain-language description of the good.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`product`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes
`decision`	Yes
`retryable`	Yes
`capability`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`generatedAt`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`receiptEnvelope`	No
`decisionCategory`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), the description adds significant behavioral details: it returns 'needs_review' or 'unavailable', never invented codes, always includes source, retrieval time, and validity window, and clarifies that only a BTI binds. This provides rich context not captured in annotations, and aligns with them.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds crucial caveats and behavioral guarantees without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers return conditions (needs_review/unavailable), data provenance (dated snapshot, source, retrieval time, validity), limitations (BTI binding, no VAT/excise), and safety (never invented). The output schema handles return structure, so the description is comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described (productDescription and knownProperties). The description only restates 'plain-language product description' without adding new semantics for either parameter. It does not clarify how knownProperties influences ranking or evidence, so it stays at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returning candidate TARIC/CN codes from a plain-language product description, ranked with evidence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle measures, cost estimation, preflight receipts, and EORI validation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: from a plain-language product description, get candidate codes. It also provides when-not guidance by stating TARIC carries no national VAT/excise, signaling users should seek separate tools for those. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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

All Jithox EU Import Preflight 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

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the preflight workflow: classification, measures, cost, EORI validation, and receipt generation. There is no overlap in purpose, and the descriptions reinforce the boundaries. An agent can accurately select the right tool for a given step.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_, estimate_, prepare_, search_, validate_. This makes the tools predictable and easy to navigate. No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for an EU import preflight service. Each tool earns its place by covering a key step in the workflow, from product classification to cost estimation and evidence generation. There is no bloat or missing essential function.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full preflight lifecycle: search codes, check measures, estimate cost for low-value consignments, validate EORI, and bundle results into a signed receipt. The descriptions explicitly call out out-of-scope areas (national VAT/excise) so gaps are intentional. No dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?