Skip to main content
Glama

ADR LQ / EQ Exemption Check

adr_lq_eq_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether dangerous goods qualify for ADR Limited Quantity (LQ, ADR 3.4) or Excepted Quantity (EQ, ADR 3.5) relief. LQ compares each item's per-inner-packaging quantity against that substance's LQ maximum; EQ resolves the substance's E-code (E0-E5) and checks the per-inner limit, plus the per-outer limit when inner_packaging_qty is given.

Provide mode ("lq" or "eq") and 1-20 items, each with un_number, quantity and unit — ml or L for liquids, g or kg for solids; quantity is per INNER packaging, not the whole load.

Unit families: column (7a) states the limit in ONE dimension — a mass for some entries, a volume for others — and ADR supplies no density, so a mass quantity against a volume limit (or the reverse) CANNOT be compared. Those items return status 'inconclusive' with the dimension named, never a pass or a fail, and a batch holding any inconclusive item never reads overall_status 'qualifies'. Send the quantity in the unit given by lq_limit_unit to get a verdict. Multi-variant UNs: a UN number with more than one ADR Table A row (packing group / concentration variant — e.g. UN 1789 PG II LQ 1 L vs PG III LQ 5 L) needs packing_group (I|II|III) or variant_index (from adr_lookup) on that item to pin one row. Without a disambiguator the tool returns blocking_errors[AMBIGUOUS_UN_VARIANT] + human_review_required + candidates[] (each candidate's variant_index, packing_group, proper_shipping_name, limited_quantity, excepted_quantity) and NO verdict, rather than silently checking the wrong packing group. Single-row UNs are unchanged.

Behavior: deterministic reference check; each item gets a status and reason (an LQ value of "0" or code E0 means the relief is not permitted for that substance), with overall_status and summary counts across the batch. Table A rows listed "NOT SUBJECT TO ADR" (e.g. UN 1845 dry ice) get item status not_subject — outside ADR scope, neither a pass nor a fail — and an all-not-subject batch returns overall_status not_applicable; "CARRIAGE PROHIBITED" rows are not_permitted with the prohibition stated in reason. Rate-limited (anonymous use: 25 requests/day per IP): a 429 error body carries retry_after_seconds and a Retry-After header — back off and retry, or call get_subscribe_link for higher limits.

Returns: mode, overall_status (qualifies | does_not_qualify | partial | not_applicable | inconclusive), items[] (un_number, variant_index, substance, class, packing_group, lq_limit or eq_code, quantity_entered, status, reason, and scope flags where applicable), summary {total_items, qualifying, exceeding, not_permitted, not_subject?, inconclusive?} and the ADR chapter references under result — or, when a UN is ambiguous, human_review_required + candidates[] with blocking_errors, plus confidence, _source and citation (the FreightUtils v1 response envelope).

Limitations: a quantity-threshold check only — LQ/EQ relief also requires packaging, marking and documentation conformity that this tool does not assess; not legal advice, verify against the current UNECE ADR text.

Related: adr_lookup (the per-substance LQ/EQ values + variant_index), adr_exemption_calculator (the 1.1.3.6 load-points route instead).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesCheck mode: 'lq' (Limited Quantity, ADR 3.4) or 'eq' (Excepted Quantity, ADR 3.5)
itemsYesItems to check (1–20 per call).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
resultYes
_sourceYes
citationYes
validityNo
warningsNo
confidenceYes
blocking_errorsNo
envelope_versionYes
normalized_inputNo

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: deterministic reference checking, ambiguous-UN blocking errors with candidates[], inconclusive results for dimension mismatches, not_subject and not_permitted statuses, and 429 rate-limit retry semantics. There is no contradiction with 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but earned: it front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers behavior, returns, limitations, and related tools. Every paragraph addresses a distinct concern that affects correct invocation. The structure with labeled sections keeps the density manageable.

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?

The description covers input requirements, edge cases, ambiguous-UN handling, return envelope details, rate-limit error behavior, and limitations, and an output schema exists. For a complex regulatory tool, nothing essential for selecting or calling it correctly appears to be missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While the schema has 100% coverage of parameter names and enums, the description adds meaning the schema cannot convey: quantity is per inner packaging, not the whole load; mass units cannot be compared against volume limits; packing_group and variant_index disambiguate multi-variant UN rows; and inner_packaging_qty drives the per-outer EQ limit. This is a strong value-add over the structured schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether dangerous goods qualify for ADR Limited Quantity... or Excepted Quantity... relief.' It distinguishes itself from related siblings by naming adr_lookup as the source of per-substance values and adr_exemption_calculator as the alternative load-points route. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does or where it fits.

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 states when to use each mode ('lq' vs 'eq'), the required item structure, the 1-20 item limit, and the need to provide quantity per inner packaging. It also names alternatives and their conditions: adr_lookup for LQ/EQ values and variant_index, and adr_exemption_calculator for the 1.1.3.6 load-points route. It further explains when no verdict is possible, such as unit-dimension mismatches or ambiguous UN variants.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools cluster into clear domains and the descriptions are detailed, but there are several overlapping pairs: consignment_calculator vs shipment_summary, cbm_calculator vs unit_converter, and validate vs resolve_reference all have fuzzy boundaries. An agent could plausibly mis-select between the composite calculators or between identifier-handling tools despite the helpful cross-references.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is mostly consistent: reference tools use *_lookup, calculation tools use *_calculator, and checks use *_check. Exceptions like validate, resolve_reference, nearest_airport, and shipment_summary break the dominant pattern slightly, but all names are snake_case and generally predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this sits at the heavy end of the range for an MCP server. The broad freight/logistics scope justifies many of them, but several single-purpose calculators could have been consolidated or grouped, making the surface feel larger and more redundant than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The server covers ADR dangerous-goods rules, multi-modal freight calculations, equipment lookups, identifier validation, customs/trade data, and emissions estimation. Minor gaps exist—no routing/geocoding, no SCAC/BIC coverage, no customs filing—but core freight-reference and calculation workflows are well supported.