Skip to main content
Glama

Proposition 65

by dev.toolstop

Is this chemical on the Proposition 65 list

check_prop65
Read-only

Look up a chemical by CAS number or name and report whether it is on California's Proposition 65 list. Use this when deciding whether a product sold into California needs a warning label. Returns every matching entry with the toxicity endpoint, the listing mechanism, the date listed and the safe-harbour level where one has been adopted, plus whether the entry has since been delisted. A not_found result does not mean the chemical is safe or unregulated: it means this edition of this one list has no entry under that name or number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesA CAS number such as 71-43-2, or a chemical name such as Benzene.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listedNoWhether an active (not delisted) entry exists. Present when status is `ok`.
statusYesOutcome of the lookup. `not_found` is not a clearance. `ambiguous` means the name matched several entries and you should pick one or use a CAS number.
editionNoThe edition of the list this answer came from.
entriesNoEach matching entry, including delisted ones, with its endpoint and safe-harbour level.
candidatesNoPossible chemicals, when the name matched several entries.
notCoveredNoWhat this answer does not establish. Present on both hits and misses.
delistedOnlyNoTrue when every matching entry was listed and later removed.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns every matching entry with specific fields (toxicity endpoint, mechanism, date listed, safe-harbour level, delisted status) and clarifies the meaning of not_found. This goes far beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence carries necessary information. The important caveat about not_found is included without any waste.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description thoroughly explains return-value semantics, including the list of fields, delisted entries, and the scope limitation ('this edition of this one list'). It covers all necessary context for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single query parameter with examples ('A CAS number such as 71-43-2, or a chemical name such as Benzene'). The description repeats this but does not add new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'look up' and clearly identifies the resource: a chemical on California's Proposition 65 list. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_prop65 by focusing on a targeted lookup/report for a single chemical and enumerating the output fields.

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?

Explicitly states the intended use: 'Use this when deciding whether a product sold into California needs a warning label.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Proposition 65 toolsInspect
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: exact lookup by CAS/name, list metadata, recent listings by year, and fragment search. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_prop65, describe_prop65_list, list_recent_listings, search_prop65. The pattern is predictable and uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused Proposition 65 lookup server. Each tool serves a distinct need without redundancy or bloat, and the count is appropriate for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the core operations for the Prop 65 list: exact lookup, search, recent additions, and list metadata. These cover the main compliance and research workflows, with no obvious missing operations that would cause agent failures.

Resources