EU Trade Explorer

Validate Code

validate_code

Validate and describe one or more Combined Nomenclature codes.

For a single code, returns the full hierarchy of description levels (levels), the resolved product_name, and has_subcodes. For a comma-separated list, returns {"results": [...]} with one entry per code (each either a success dict or an {"code", "error"} pair).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	One CN code, or a comma-separated list of up to 50 codes (e.g. '73030010, 73030090'). The literal 'TOTAL' is also accepted.
`lang`	No	Language for translated labels in the response. One of: bg, cs, da, de, el, en, es, et, fi, fr, ga, hr, hu, it, lt, lv, mt, nl, pl, pt, ro, sk, sl, sv.	en

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly explains the dual behavior (single vs. list) and the success/error response structure. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only validation tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and using clear backticked formatting for technical terms. Every sentence contributes necessary information about behavior, making it highly efficient with zero wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity of handling single vs. list inputs and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors thoroughly. It explains the two return modes and the error pairing. The special 'TOTAL' code is mentioned only in the schema, but that is part of parameter documentation rather than the tool description. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including the comma-separated list and accepted languages. The tool description adds context about how the cardinality of 'code' affects the response format, but this is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. No additional parameter semantics are necessary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Validate and describe') and resource ('Combined Nomenclature codes'). It indicates the return of hierarchy levels, product name, and subcode status, which distinguishes it from generic code tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like resolve_product_code or search_codes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides input format guidance (single code vs. comma-separated list) and explains the two response modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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

All EU Trade Explorer tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but several concentration-related tools (get_concentration, get_concentration_compare, get_concentration_map) and volatility-related tools (get_volatility, get_volatility_summary) could be confused without careful reading. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always immediately obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent get_ prefix pattern for data retrieval. A few exceptions (guidelines_for_a_*, resolve_product_code, search_codes, validate_code) deviate to signal different kinds of operations, which is sensible but breaks uniformity.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. Many tools are variations on the same analytical theme (e.g., multiple concentration and production tools) and could be consolidated or parameterized. This creates a steep learning curve and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.

Completeness5/5

The tool set comprehensively covers the trade-exploration workflow: product code resolution, hierarchical browsing, headline stats, partner/reporter detail, concentration, volatility, shocks, production metrics, and report generation. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for its stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?