Skip to main content
Glama

Proposition 65

by dev.toolstop

Chemicals added to the list since a year

list_recent_listings
Read-only

List the chemicals added to Proposition 65 on or after a given year. Use this to find recent additions, which matters because a warning is generally required twelve months after a chemical is listed, so a new entry starts a compliance clock. Returns active listings only, newest first, with their dates, and reports how many entries carry no parseable date and are therefore missing from the answer. It does not tell you whether any particular product is affected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceYesFour-digit year, from 1986 onwards. Prop 65 listings begin in 1987.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoHow many active chemicals were listed on or after that year.
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.
resultsNoThe chemicals, newest first.
undatedEntriesNoActive entries with no parseable listing date, absent from this answer.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral details: returns active listings only, orders newest first, includes dates, and reports how many entries lack parseable dates and are excluded. This goes well beyond annotations and gives a clear picture of edge cases.

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 action, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: usage, rationale, output behavior, and a limitation. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers usage context, output specifics, and caveats (missing dates, product-inapplicability). It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for the 'since' parameter, including type, range, and context. The description only paraphrases 'on or after a given year' without adding new parameter-level semantics, 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 clearly states the tool lists chemicals added to Proposition 65 on or after a given year, with a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing 'recent additions' and 'active listings only,' which separates it from sibling tools like search_prop65.

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 explicitly says to use this for finding recent additions and explains the compliance-clock relevance. It notes what it does not do ('does not tell you whether any particular product is affected'), though it doesn't name an alternative tool for product-specific queries, so it falls slightly short of full alternative guidance.

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