SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Placard / label codes for a hazardous material from the US

logistics_hazardous_placard_id

Read-only

Placard / label codes for a hazardous material from the US DOT table (49 CFR 172.101, eCFR), by UN number (e.g. 1203) or name fragment: label codes, hazard class and packing group. Returns the label code numbers as written in the table; it does not give the placard artwork or emergency response guide entries. Usually answers in a few seconds, up to 16 s on slower calls; allow a 30 s timeout. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_hazardous_placard_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	4-digit UN number (1203) or a name fragment of 3 to 60 characters

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`query`	No
`source`	No
`matches`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses latency expectations (a few seconds, up to 16 s, allow a 30 s timeout) and the paid-call model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged). That payment and timing detail is operational context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what it returns, then its limits, then timing, then price. The parenthetical citation and price/payment sentence are dense but each carries real decision value for an agent; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers source authority, return fields, scope limits, latency and cost — everything an agent needs before calling. Return-value structure is correctly left to the output schema.

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% and the single 'q' parameter is already documented as a 4-digit UN number or a 3–60 character name fragment. The description echoes the same guidance with an example (1203), adding readability but no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. 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 and resource: returns placard/label codes, hazard class and packing group for a hazardous material from the 49 CFR 172.101 table, keyed by UN number or name fragment. It also draws a boundary against adjacent capabilities by saying it does not return placard artwork or emergency response guide entries, which is the main thing separating it from the dangerous-goods sibling.

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?

The description makes the calling context clear (lookup by UN number such as 1203, or a name fragment) and names explicit exclusions — no placard artwork, no ERG entries — which functions as when-not guidance. It stops short of pointing to a specific alternative sibling when the caller actually needs ERG or artwork data.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy 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.

Resources

Need Help?