eudr

Check plots for forest loss after the EUDR cut-off

eudr_check_plots

Check up to eight production plots for forest loss after 31 December 2020, the cut-off in Regulation (EU) 2023/1115. Takes GeoJSON boundaries, the commodity, and the country of production. Returns a per-plot verdict, the loss years observed, how much of each plot was inspected, and a handle for the underlying satellite evidence. This answers Article 3(a) only: it does not check land tenure, permits, consent, or chain of custody, and it lists those gaps on every response. This has side effects, though it writes nothing to the organisation's records and costs no credits: every call asks emem.dev to make freshly signed measurements, so repeating a check returns the same finding under new signatures, and mints a short-lived evidence handle held on this server for 24 hours, which eudr_fetch_evidence resolves and which a later check will not reproduce.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plots`	No	Several plots checked together, each keeping its own verdict. Use this when a consignment draws on more than one plot.
`country`	Yes	ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 code of the country of production. It sets the benchmark risk tier.
`geojson`	No	One plot, as a GeoJSON Polygon, MultiPolygon or Point in WGS84 (EPSG:4326). Article 2(28) requires six decimal places. A Point is admissible only for a plot under four hectares that is not forest. Supply this or `plots`.
`hs_code`	No	Optional HS code, 2 to 8 digits. Overrides the commodity-to-Annex-I mapping.
`commodity`	Yes	The Annex I commodity produced on the plot.
`quantity_kg`	No	Optional net mass of the consignment. It does not affect the verdict.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`engine`	Yes
`finding`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	fact_count is always present. It is a count of facts that exist, not of facts shipped: the conversational surface carries the address rather than the list.
`observed`	Yes
`per_plot`	Yes
`risk_score`	No
`scope_note`	Yes
`next_action`	Yes
`cut_off_date`	Yes
`country_risk_tier`	No
`unresolved_checks`	Yes
`deforestation_free`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses side effects beyond the annotations: fresh signed measurements on every call, same finding under new signatures, a short-lived evidence handle retained for 24 hours, no writes to organisation records, and no credit cost. This goes well beyond readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then return values, scope limits, and side effects in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no padding or repetition of schema 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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies the missing operational context: side effects, evidence-handle lifecycle, scope limitations, and the meaning of repeated calls. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds contextual framing around GeoJSON, commodity, and country, but it does not materially extend the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check'), a precise resource (up to eight production plots), the legal threshold (forest loss after 31 December 2020), and the key inputs (GeoJSON, commodity, country). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like eudr_fetch_evidence and eudr_assess_evidence_gaps.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly scopes the tool to Article 3(a) and names what it does not check (land tenure, permits, consent, chain of custody), which helps an agent decide when this is insufficient. It does not name sibling alternatives for those other checks, but the boundary is clear enough.

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

All eudr tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.