Skip to main content
Glama

Does the country chart require an export licence

check_export_license
Read-only

Given an ECCN and a destination country, report whether the Commerce Country Chart requires an export licence, and which reasons for control trigger it. Use this when someone is about to ship or transfer a controlled item abroad and needs the licence question answered before it moves. Returns the triggering reasons with the scope text from the Control List entry, because many controls apply to only part of an entry, plus any controls that are not decided by the chart at all. A false result means the chart alone does not require a licence; it is not clearance to export, and it says nothing about the Entity List, embargoes, end-use controls, or whether the ECCN is the right one. An entry the chart does not decide returns indeterminate with its requirement text instead of a verdict, which is an unanswered question rather than a negative answer. This tool cannot classify an item into an ECCN and will not try.

Every verdict carries its own evidence and you should report it rather than the boolean alone. checked lists each chart cell that was read and what it held, so a negative answer can be verified against 15 CFR part 738 Supplement No. 1 without trusting this server; footnotes carries row conditions this tool does not apply and which can change the answer; sourceEdition says which CFR edition the tables came from, and a snapshot older than the current regulation gives a stale answer that still reads as confident.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eccnYesExport Control Classification Number, e.g. 3A001. Digit, letter A to E, three digits.
countryYesDestination country as spelled on the Commerce Country Chart, e.g. Japan or Korea, South.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eccnNoThe normalised ECCN.
titleNoThe Control List entry heading.
statusYesOutcome of the lookup. Only `ok` carries an answer. `embargoed` means the chart does not govern the destination. `indeterminate` means the entry has no country-chart control in this data and the chart cannot answer for it, which is not the same as no licence being required. `ambiguous_country` means the name matched more than one row and you must ask which was meant.
checkedNoEvery chart-determined control on the entry, each with the column read, its reason code, the scope it applies to, and whether that column is marked for this destination. This is the citation for the verdict and it is the only way to check a `licenseRequired: false`, which otherwise arrives as a bare boolean. Verify it against 15 CFR part 738 Supplement No. 1 before relying on a negative answer.
countryNoThe chart row that was matched.
messageNoWhy no verdict was returned, when status is not `ok`.
footnotesNoFootnotes on this chart row, each with its number and text. **They can change the answer and this tool does not apply them.** Footnote 6 is the Russia and Belarus sanctions and footnote 8 is Crimea. A `licenseRequired: false` on a row carrying footnotes is not a clear result until the footnote text has been read.
candidatesNoPossible destinations, when the country name matched more than one row.
notCoveredNoWhat this answer does not address. Always present on an answered lookup.
triggeredByNoEach control whose chart column is marked for this destination, with its scope caveat.
sourceEditionYesThe CFR edition the tables were taken from. Present on every response, including errors. Data older than the current regulation is a stale answer, not a wrong one, and the regulation is the authority.
countryColumnsNoEvery control column marked for this destination on the chart row, whether or not it bears on this ECCN.
licenseRequiredNoWhether the country chart requires a licence. Present only when status is `ok`. False does not mean the export is permitted.
controlsNotOnChartNoControls on this entry that the chart does not decide, with the requirement text verbatim.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint by explaining nuanced behaviors: the meaning of `false` (chart alone does not require a license, not clearance), the `indeterminate` result (unanswered question), the evidence fields (`checked`, `footnotes`, `sourceEdition`), and the staleness caveat that an older snapshot gives a confident but stale answer. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, return semantics, evidence fields, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the core function and organized into logical paragraphs, with no filler.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values, the meaning of verdicts, evidence fields, and potential pitfalls like stale data. It is as complete as needed for an agent to select and trust the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described with examples and constraints. The description only repeats 'ECCN and a destination country' and adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'report whether the Commerce Country Chart requires an export licence, and which reasons for control trigger it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on checking export license requirements, not explaining reason codes or looking up countries/ECCNs.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when someone is about to ship or transfer a controlled item abroad and needs the licence question answered before it moves.' It also provides clear exclusions: 'This tool cannot classify an item into an ECCN and will not try,' and clarifies that a false result is not clearance and does not cover Entity List, embargoes, or end-use controls.

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: check_export_license combines ECCN and country for a verdict, lookup_eccn provides entry details, lookup_country provides destination chart rows, and explain_reason_code expands code definitions. There is no overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_export_license, explain_reason_code, lookup_country, lookup_eccn. The convention is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for the focused purpose of export control license determination. Each tool earns its place as part of a coherent workflow, and the count is within the ideal range.

Completeness5/5

For the stated scope (Commerce Country Chart-based license checking), the tool set covers the full workflow: look up ECCN, look up country, check license, and expand reason codes. The descriptions explicitly note limitations, so there are no surprising gaps within the server's intended domain.