MadeCheck

List import requirements

list_import_requirements

Read-onlyIdempotent

List import requirements. List category requirements for product, with optional category and for_children; returns applicable requirements, citations, labels and testing notes. For a reliable result, pass category, one of: toys_children, collectibles_adult, baby_items, apparel_children, jewelry_children, jewelry_adult, stationery_children, button_cell_magnet, apparel_adult, footwear, bags, home_textiles, rugs, window_coverings, furniture_storage, candles, party_decor, sports_outdoor, electronics_basic, wireless_devices, lithium_battery, plug_in_appliances, chargers_power, phone_accessories, string_lights, personal_care_electric, cosmetics, nail_hair_beauty_tools, food_contact, baby_feeding, pet_products, antimicrobial_repellent, eyewear, medical_claim_products, adult_bed_rail, pool_drain_cover, atv, children_footwear. Show top_3 to the user first. free, rate-limited. 品类合规门槛。按 product 及可选 category、for_children 列品类合规门槛；返回适用要求、出处、标签和检测说明。想要准确结果请直接传 category（品类 id 见英文说明）。先把 top_3 给用户看。免费，限次。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "product": "<product>"
    },
    "name": "list_import_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product`	Yes
`category`	No
`for_children`	No
`materials_text`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds two things annotations cannot express: 'free, rate-limited' and the presentation rule 'Show top_3 to the user first'. Rate limiting is exactly the kind of operational context that matters, though it doesn't quantify the limit or say what happens on exhaustion.

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 is front-loaded and the category list is arguably necessary given the enum-less schema. But the entire block is duplicated in Chinese with no added information, roughly doubling length, and the 40-item inline list is hard to scan compared to a structured reference.

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?

No output schema, so the description correctly names the return fields, and it discloses cost/rate limits. But one of four parameters (`materials_text`) is undocumented and the interplay between `category` and `for_children` is unexplained, leaving an agent guessing on a tool whose accuracy the description itself calls out as conditional.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the load — and it does add real value by listing the ~40 valid `category` ids, which the schema does not constrain at all. However, `materials_text` is never mentioned, and `for_children` is only named in passing with no semantics (does it narrow or broaden results?). Partial compensation only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List import requirements' / 'List category requirements for product') and enumerates what is returned (requirements, citations, labels, testing notes). This separates it from mutation siblings like request_compliance_check or accept_compliance_quote, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closest read sibling get_compliance_check.

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?

Gives concrete operating instructions: pass `category` for reliable results, and 'Show top_3 to the user first'. That is real when/how guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. get_compliance_check or list_compliance_checks), so no exclusions are stated.

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

All MadeCheck 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?