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) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
