Skip to main content
Glama

TracePass

by eu.tracepass

TracePass DPP templates (regulatory schemas)

tracepass_templates
Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover the regulatory field schema for each DPP category — what a COMPLIANT passport must contain, per the governing EU regulation. Read-only reference data. Use this to advise on requirements before creating products/passports, and to gap-check a draft against the rules.

Actions (pass via action, with args):

  • list — args: {}. Lists all 13 categories with their field count, required-field count, and governing regulation (name + number + effective/mandatory dates).

  • get — args: { category }. Full field schema for one category: every field's key, label, dataType, whether it is REQUIRED, its access level (public/restricted/authority), enum options, validation bounds, and — where known — the regulation article/annex that mandates it. category is one of: battery, textile, electronics, construction, steel, detergents, paints-coatings, packaging, furniture, tyres, jewelry, toys, fmcg.

BATTERY — required-ness is per-category, so required alone is the wrong answer. Resolve it in this order:

  1. SCOPE FIRST. Only EV, LMT and industrial_gt_2kwh batteries owe a passport at all (Art. 77(1), Reg (EU) 2023/1542). For portable, SLI or industrial_lte_2kwh, NO field is required — do not list mandatory fields for them; say the battery is out of scope.

  2. Then requiredBy[batteryCategory] where the field carries that map (required | conditional | notApplicable).

  3. Then fall back to required. The map is keyed ONLY by the three in-scope categories, so skipping step 1 falls through to required and invents an obligation the Regulation does not impose. Note also that EV and LMT report state-of-health through MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE field sets — an EV battery must leave the remaining-capacity cluster empty and an LMT battery must leave stateOfCertifiedEnergy empty, so no single battery ever fills every field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoArguments for the chosen action; `category` is required for get, ignored for list.
actionYesList all DPP category templates, or get one template by category.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe resource's TracePass id, when the response is a single entity.
pageNoCurrent page number (list actions).
errorNoMachine-readable error code, when the API rejected the request.
itemsNoThe page of results, when the action is a list.
limitNoPage size (list actions).
totalNoTotal matching records across all pages (list actions).
resultNoWraps a non-object response body (e.g. a QR code string).
messageNoHuman-readable error or status detail, when present.
totalPagesNoTotal number of pages (list actions).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable reads. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these annotations: it explains that the data is regulatory schema (not actual passport data), details the resolution logic for the battery 'required' field, warns about mutual exclusivity of field sets for EV/LMT, and describes the scope-first rule. This provides rich behavioral transparency without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear intro sentence, followed by action specifications and a detailed battery resolution section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and use cases. The battery section is somewhat long but necessary for safe usage. Slightly verbose in the enum listing, which could be redundant given schema coverage. Overall earns its length with valuable content.

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 complexity of regulatory schema, two actions, and an output schema existence, the description is comprehensive. It covers return value semantics for both actions, provides critical edge case handling for battery category, explains the resolution order for 'required-ness', and notes the mutual exclusivity rule for EV/LMT. The output schema likely documents the return structure, so the description does not need to duplicate that. A fully complete description for a moderately complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents both parameters (action and category) with enums and descriptions. The description adds value by explaining what each action returns (list yields category list with field counts; get yields full field schema) and provides the complete list of category enum values. It also adds critical context about the battery category's special resolution logic, though parameter semantics themselves are mostly covered by the schema. Baseline 3 plus one extra for the battery-specific nuance.

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 it is a 'read-only reference data' tool to 'discover the regulatory field schema for each DPP category'. It explicitly distinguishes two actions (list and get) and specifies what each returns, making the purpose unambiguous. The verb 'discover' combined with the resource 'regulatory field schema' provides a specific verb+resource pairing that differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'advise on requirements before creating products/passports' and 'to gap-check a draft against the rules'. It provides clear guidance on the actions (list vs. get) and when to use each. No explicit when-not-to-use exclusions are needed as the scope is well-defined, and there are no obvious alternative siblings that compete for the same use case.

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

All TracePass 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain: EPCIS events, passport fields, passport parties, passport lifecycle, product catalogue, and regulatory templates. There is no overlap in purpose between tools, and even the related passport_fields and passport_parties are clearly separated by the type of data they manage.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'tracepass_' prefix followed by a plural noun (epcis, passport_fields, passport_parties, passports, products, templates). Actions within each tool use lowercase verbs (e.g., list, get, create, update, export, capture) with consistent _by_serial variants, creating a uniform and predictable naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a Digital Product Passport platform. Each tool covers a necessary slice of the domain without redundancy or excessive granularity, fitting comfortably within the ideal range of 3-15 tools.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full passport lifecycle (create, read, update via fields/parties, suspend, archive), product management, EPCIS event capture/query, and regulatory template discovery. The only notable gap is the lack of a delete action for products, but this is a minor oversight given the strong overall coverage.

Resources