eudr

Look up country risk, Annex I commodities, ports and trade lanes

eudr_lookup_reference

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up the country benchmark tier under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093, the Annex I commodity to HS-code mapping under Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, the seaports and airports a consignment can leave or enter through (UN/LOCODE), or which countries actually supply the Union with each commodity and in what volume (UN Comtrade 2023, with World Bank indicator prices). Returns the table this engine evaluates against, with its source and the date it was verified.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	`country_risk` for the benchmark tiers, `commodities` for the Annex I mapping, `ports` for UN/LOCODE seaports and airports, `trade` for who supplies the Union with what.
`country`	No	With kind=country_risk, return just this country's tier instead of the whole table. With kind=ports, return just that country's seaports and airports instead of the Union's points of entry.
`commodity`	No	With kind=trade, return just this Annex I commodity's import lanes instead of all seven.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`note`	No
`tier`	No
`basis`	No
`country`	No
`low_risk`	No
`high_risk`	No
`reference`	No
`commodities`	No
`simplified_due_diligence_available`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / commodity

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With kind=trade, return just this Annex I commodity's import lanes instead of all seven.",
+  "enum": [
+    "cocoa",
+    "coffee",
+    "rubber",
+    "soya",
+    "oil_palm",
+    "cattle",
+    "wood"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / kind / description

Previous value: -"`country_risk` for the benchmark tiers, `commodities` for the Annex I mapping."New value: +"`country_risk` for the benchmark tiers, `commodities` for the Annex I mapping, `ports` for UN/LOCODE seaports and airports, `trade` for who supplies the Union with what."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "country_risk",
-  "commodities",
-  "ports"
-]New value: +[
+  "country_risk",
+  "commodities",
+  "ports",
+  "trade"
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / kind / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "country_risk",
-  "commodities",
-  "ports"
-]New value: +[
+  "country_risk",
+  "commodities",
+  "ports",
+  "trade"
+]

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / country / description

Previous value: -"With kind=country_risk, return just this country's tier instead of the whole table."New value: +"With kind=country_risk, return just this country's tier instead of the whole table. With kind=ports, return just that country's seaports and airports instead of the Union's points of entry."

changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "country_risk",
-  "commodities"
-]New value: +[
+  "country_risk",
+  "commodities",
+  "ports"
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / kind / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "country_risk",
-  "commodities"
-]New value: +[
+  "country_risk",
+  "commodities",
+  "ports"
+]

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: provenance (source regulation, UN Comtrade 2023, World Bank indicator prices) and the fact that it returns a verification date, which signals a static snapshot rather than live data. Missing only pagination or table-size behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the four branches, then the return contract. It is dense and could be broken into a bulleted list for the four kinds, but nothing is filler and the scope is stated before the return behavior.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still adds the source/verification-date contract. With full param coverage and clear enum routing, the only material omission is guidance on when in a compliance workflow to reach for this lookup versus the assessment siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the four kind branches but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the enum descriptions already carry; the regulatory citations enrich context but not parameter meaning. The optional country/commodity narrowing is documented only in the 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?

States a concrete verb ('Look up') and enumerates the four distinct reference tables (country risk tiers, Annex I HS-code mapping, UN/LOCODE ports, trade lanes) with their governing regulations. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the operational siblings like eudr_compliance_status or eudr_check_plots, which assess data rather than fetch the static tables the engine evaluates against.

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 four 'kind' branches imply the usage context (reference data underlying the engine), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of any alternative tool. An agent must infer that this is the lookup layer for values returned by the compliance tools, rather than being told to consult it before/after running an assessment.

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.