Deterministic gateway for international technical standards (GB/T, ISO/IEC), mandatory factory certifications (CCC), and strategic dual-use export control regimes (MOFCOM notices and bilateral suspensions)
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool maps to a distinct pillar: importability assessment, MOFCOM export controls, and GB/CCC standards. There is mild overlap between assess_importability (which mentions export approvals) and check_mofcom_export_controls, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well enough for an agent to choose.
All three tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (assess_importability, check_mofcom_export_controls, resolve_gb_standards). The naming is predictable and consistent throughout.
Three tools fall within the well-scoped range and each covers a genuinely different regulatory concern. The surface is compact but defensible for the domain, though one could argue a few more tools would help given the breadth of EU/US/China compliance.
The three tools cover importability, export controls, and standards/certification, forming a coherent compliance lifecycle. Minor gaps exist (e.g. tariff/duty classification, sanctions screening, or documentation generation), but core workflows are covered.
Evaluates end-to-end importability of Chinese industrial components into the EU or US, assessing mandatory export approvals, overseas documentation, indicative costs and compliance lead times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| material_keyword | No | Optional sensitive input to cross-check MOFCOM export hurdles simultaneously | |
| product_category | Yes | Target industrial sector (e.g., ev_battery, consumer_battery, electronics) | |
| destination_market | Yes | Target customs territory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the assessment dimensions returned (approvals, overseas documentation, indicative costs, compliance lead times), which compensates somewhat for the absent output schema. It says nothing about caveats, data freshness, permissions, or whether results are estimates versus authoritative, which for a compliance-adjacent tool is a real omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the assessment scope. Every clause carries information, though the list of outputs makes it slightly long for one sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must describe both intent and return content; it does list the four output dimensions, which is the key thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing result format or caveats, but for a 3-parameter analytical tool this is close to sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the enum and the optional material_keyword cross-check already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'EU or US' for destination_market, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Evaluates end-to-end importability of Chinese industrial components into the EU or US.' An agent can tell this is a composite trade-readiness assessment rather than a lookup. It never names its siblings (check_mofcom_export_controls, resolve_gb_standards), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the scope statement — call this when you need a combined view of export approvals, documentation, cost and lead time. There is no explicit when-not condition and no routing advice against the sibling tools, which is where a genuine gap lies given that check_mofcom_export_controls overlaps with the export-approval portion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Checks Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) export control regimes, dual-use licensing, and bilateral truce suspensions (including US/EU specific regimes) for minerals, batteries, and tech.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hs_code | No | HS code prefix (2, 4 or 6 digits, e.g., 250410, 280530, 850760) | |
| material_keyword | No | Name or keyword (e.g., graphite, holmium, erbium, battery, antimony, gallium) | |
| destination_market | No | Target destination country/market for suspension applicability | GLOBAL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Checks' reasonably conveys a read-only, non-mutating lookup and it enumerates the regimes covered, but it says nothing about result freshness, whether suspensions are time-sensitive, permissions, or rate limits that a compliance tool would reasonably need to disclose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tightly packed sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the qualifying details. It is dense but every clause carries scope information, so nothing reads as padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone, and it adequately covers scope and subject matter. It still omits what a check returns (findings, status, license requirements) and any temporal caveat, which matters for a regulatory-lookup tool with three optional inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already fully documented with examples and an enum for destination_market. The description adds only loose alignment between the categories it names (minerals, batteries, tech) and the material_keyword/hs_code inputs; it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Checks') and a well-defined resource (MOFCOM export control regimes, dual-use licensing, truce suspensions) with explicit subject-matter scope (minerals, batteries, tech). It implicitly distinguishes itself from 'assess_importability' (import side) and 'resolve_gb_standards' (standards lookup), though it never names those siblings to draw the boundary explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when the tool applies by scoping it to minerals, batteries, tech and US/EU/global markets, which guides an agent toward relevant queries. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements and never points to an alternative tool for adjacent questions like importability or standards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolves applicable Chinese national standards (GB mandatory, GB/T recommended) and verifies China Compulsory Certification (CCC) requirements under SAMR/CNCA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | Product category (e.g., ev_battery, consumer_battery, electronics, machinery, appliances) | |
| standard_code | No | Exact standard code to inspect (optional, e.g., GB 38031-2025) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or credentials are required, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but efficient, and nothing appears redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what a successful resolution returns (e.g., applicable standards list, CCC requirement status). It omits this entirely, leaving a significant gap for a lookup-style tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('resolves') and resource ('Chinese national standards') plus an additional verification action ('verifies CCC requirements'). It clearly differs in domain from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is only implied by the compliance subject matter, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
assess_importabilitycheck_mofcom_export_controlsresolve_gb_standards
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.