Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Bot Bazaar

by dev.fly.bot-bazaar
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

CPSC 16 CFR 1110 7-element linter ($0.01)

cpsc_csv_lint
Idempotent

[Paid x402 / X-Bazaar-Key: 0.01 USDC] Validate a CPSC CPC/GCC certificate row or CSV against all 7 statutory elements under 16 CFR 1110 / CPSA Section 14(a) eFiling (product ID, safety rule citations, US importer/manufacturer certifier, records custodian contact, manufacture date/place, test date/place, and CPSC-accepted third-party lab or determination). Supports GET query params and POST JSON/CSV. Templates & schema linting only — not legal advice.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cpsc_csv_lint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
csvNoCPSC CPC/GCC CSV text (header + rows, or single comma-separated row)
labNoCPSC-accepted third-party lab name/ID or determination citation (Element 7)
skuNoProduct SKU or product_id (Element 1)
contactNoRecords custodian contact name & email/phone (Element 4)
lab_nameNoAlias for lab (Element 7)
mfg_dateNoManufacture date YYYY-MM (Element 5)
cert_typeNoCertificate type: CPC (children's) or GCC (general/PPPA)
certifierNoUS Importer of Record or domestic manufacturer name (Element 3)
citationsNoCPSC safety rule citations, e.g. '16 CFR 1303; ASTM F963-23' (Element 2)
mfg_placeNoManufacture city and country (Element 5)
test_dateNoTest date YYYY-MM-DD (Element 6)
test_placeNoTest city and country (Element 6)
product_nameNoProduct description (Element 1)
contact_emailNoRecords custodian email address (Element 4)
importer_nameNoAlias for certifier / US Importer of Record (Element 3)
citation_codesNoAlias for citations (Element 2)
mfg_city_countryNoAlias for mfg_place (Element 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the paid x402 / X-Bazaar-Key 0.01 USDC auth path, which explains why readOnlyHint is false despite being a validation tool. It also bounds the behavior ('linting only — not legal advice'). It stops short of saying what the pass/fail response contains or whether any state is persisted.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: pricing/auth, purpose, transport modes, and scope limit all appear in three sentences. The parenthetical 7-element list is long but earns its place by defining what is checked; the pricing bracket is slightly awkward but functionally necessary.

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?

With 17 optional params, alias fields, and no output schema, the description covers inputs and payment but says nothing about the return value — whether it reports per-element pass/fail, error codes, or a summary verdict. For a validator, that output shape is the main thing an agent still needs.

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% and each parameter already carries its statutory element label (Element 1–7), so the description's element enumeration largely duplicates the schema. It adds the useful fact that the whole record can be supplied either as CSV text or as discrete fields, but gives no format or conflict-handling detail for the alias params.

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 (validate) on a specific resource (CPSC CPC/GCC certificate row or CSV) against a named standard (16 CFR 1110 / CPSA 14(a) eFiling), and enumerates the 7 elements checked. An agent can distinguish this from the many other '*_lint' siblings immediately.

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 description establishes scope ('Templates & schema linting only — not legal advice') and transport modes ('Supports GET query params and POST JSON/CSV'), but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g. a generic CSV linter) or what preconditions the input must satisfy. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

All Bot Bazaar toolsInspect
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