SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Whether an import into an EU member state falls under EU

logistics_phytosanitary_cert_req

Read-only

Whether an import into an EU member state falls under EU plant health control (phytosanitary certificate under Reg. (EU) 2016/2031 and 2019/2072 Annex XI/XII) and which other sanitary/phytosanitary and technical requirements apply, for a 10-digit CN/TARIC code and origin country, from the European Commission's Access2Markets service, with the national plant health authority and laws. EU imports only. 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": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "origin": "<origin>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_phytosanitary_cert_req"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	10-digit CN/TARIC code (8 digits are padded with 00), e.g. 0805102200 (fresh sweet oranges)
`origin`	Yes	ISO alpha-2 country of origin outside the EU, e.g. TR, MA, CN
`destination`	No	EU member state alpha-2, e.g. DE, NL, FR (default DE)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No
`note`	No
`origin`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`destination`	No
`plantHealth`	No
`plantHealthControl`	No
`generalRequirements`	No
`specificRequirements`	No
`phytosanitaryCertificate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a read-only, open-world lookup, and the description adds materially useful context: metered cost of $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls uncharged. That pricing/charging rule is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing latency or result completeness.

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?

Front-loads the core question and scope before the regulatory citations, then closes with the pricing sentence. The dense legal references are justified given the domain, though the opening sentence is long enough that an agent must parse carefully.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs to decide and call: the question answered, input shapes, EU-only scope, data provenance including national authority and laws, and the payment model. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no gap remains.

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% and each parameter already carries examples and formatting rules (8-digit padding, ISO alpha-2 origin outside the EU, destination defaulting to DE). The description only restates "10-digit CN/TARIC code and origin country," adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise question the tool answers (whether an EU import falls under plant health control), the exact regulatory basis (Reg. (EU) 2016/2031, 2019/2072 Annex XI/XII), the inputs (10-digit CN/TARIC code and origin country) and the data source (Access2Markets plus national plant health authority). This clearly separates it from siblings like logistics_eu_taric_consultation and logistics_veterinary_border_control.

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?

"EU imports only" gives an explicit applicability constraint, and the stated inputs scope the use case tightly. It does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g. veterinary border control for animal products, EU TARIC consultation for duty rates), so the agent must infer routing itself.

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?