ComplianceCN — toys, batteries, cosmetics, food contact: CE, GPSR, UN 38.3, CPC/GCC and more

Amazon or another marketplace asked for compliance files

check_amazon_compliance_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when Amazon or another marketplace has asked a seller for compliance files or documents -- for example "Amazon asked me for compliance paperwork", "my listing was taken down pending documents", or "the platform wants safety evidence". Returns the evidence a marketplace typically requests for this product and destination market, which items the seller already holds, and what is still outstanding. Answers immediately from the published ruleset: no case, no account, no follow-up call. Access notice: product assessment through market_access_check is free and unlimited -- the first call returns preliminary requirements, and a different product simply starts its own case. Only a second human-reviewed pack for the same confirmed seller email is arranged with ComplianceCN.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case_id`	No	The case this call continues, from an earlier result. Omit to start a new product case.
`markets`	No	Optional destination-market hints. Omit when product_description names the destination.
`category`	No	Optional structured category hint. Canonical IDs and common English/Chinese labels are accepted. Omit when product_description contains enough information for extraction.
`language`	No	Language for seller-facing text. Questions and messages come back in it; en or zh.	zh
`age_group`	No	Intended user age. Decides whether toy safety rules apply and which small-parts and warning duties follow.
`has_radio`	No	Whether the product transmits: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC, or any other radio. Decides the RED conformity route in the EU and FCC authorisation in the US.
`has_battery`	No	Whether the product contains or ships with any battery, including a coin cell in a remote.
`battery_type`	No	Cell chemistry. Decides whether UN 38.3 transport testing and battery-passport duties apply. Use unknown rather than guessing.
`product_name`	No	Human-readable product or SKU name
`evidence_held`	No	Evidence IDs the seller already holds, from a previous result's evidence_checklist. Marks each item held rather than unknown; it does not verify the document.
`sales_channel`	No	Where the product is sold. Marketplaces impose their own evidence requests on top of the legal requirements.
`verified_only`	No	Exclude decision rules not checked against primary sources
`eu_destination`	No	Destination member state, where it changes the answer. Language and producer-registration duties differ across the EU.
`supply_chain_role`	No	The seller's role in the chain. Decides which duties are theirs rather than the manufacturer's or importer's.
`applicable_modules`	No	Optional additional modules that should be assessed together with the primary category, for example toys plus battery-electronics.
`product_description`	No	Preferred first input: describe the product, destination market, sales channel and any known supplier documents in plain language. The tool extracts a preliminary profile and fills the internal checklist. Required when category/markets are not already supplied.
`sells_in_california`	No	Whether the product is sold into California. Proposition 65 warning duties apply on top of federal requirements.
`is_childrens_product`	No	Whether the product is marketed as a children's product; keep unknown when not established.
`accessible_small_parts`	No	Whether a child could reach a part that fits in a small-parts cylinder, including parts freed by reasonably foreseeable use.
`includes_mains_charger`	No	Whether a mains plug, wall charger or power adapter ships in the box. A supplied charger is separately in scope.
`evidence_inventory_complete`	No	True only when evidence_notes/evidence_text and evidence_held together form a complete inventory. Otherwise unprovided applicable evidence remains unknown, not missing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`payload`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: answers arrive immediately from a published ruleset, with 'no case, no account, no follow-up call', confirming zero side effects. It also discloses the human-reviewed-pack limitation tied to a confirmed seller email. No contradiction with annotations; value is added without repeating what annotations state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The trigger scenario is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is excellent. But the trailing access note about market_access_check being free/unlimited and the ComplianceCN human-reviewed pack is tangential to tool selection and adds length without informing when to call this tool. Tightening that second-half notice would lift the score.

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?

Complexity is high (21 params) but the description is backed by a strong schema (100% parameter documentation) and an output schema that already covers return shape. The description covers the trigger, the return contract (requested/held/outstanding), and key behavioral traits. The only mild gap is the slightly vague relationship to market_access_check, but nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 every one of the 21 parameters is already documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description focuses on the use-case and return contract rather than individual parameters, which is appropriate given the schema's heavy lifting. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb and resource — answering a marketplace's request for compliance evidence — and grounds it with concrete trigger phrases ('Amazon asked me for compliance paperwork', 'my listing was taken down pending documents'). It states the return contract precisely: evidence requested, already held, and outstanding. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_battery_transport_documents and check_us_import_certification, which target specific regulatory routes rather than the marketplace-requested-evidence scenario.

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 opens with an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and offers example utterances, which is strong routing guidance. It also names market_access_check as the free/unlimited product-assessment path. However, the boundary between this tool and market_access_check is stated indirectly — it reads more like an access notice than a clear 'use X instead when Y' exclusion — so the when-not guidance is slightly under-developed.

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

All ComplianceCN — toys, batteries, cosmetics, food contact: CE, GPSR, UN 38.3, CPC/GCC and more tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The check_* tools each target a distinct regulatory aspect (transport, EU DoC, labeling, marketplace, US certification), and the auxiliary tools (describe, explain, compare, watch) are clearly separate. The only potential confusion is between market_access_check and preflight_product, which both assess product requirements but differ in input style and follow-up workflow.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_battery..., compare_market..., explain_claim), but market_access_check reverses the expected 'check_market_access' order and preflight_product uses a less common verb. Still, the pattern is recognizable and mostly consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is well within the ideal range for a compliance-checks server. Each tool addresses a distinct user scenario (general assessment, specialized checks, comparison, coverage, claims, alerts), and none feels redundant or superficial.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core assessment lifecycle: initial check, structured preflight, detailed specialist checks, cross-market comparison, claim explanation, and regulatory change alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to cancel alert subscriptions or retrieve a saved full report, but the main compliance-checking domain is thoroughly covered.

Resources

Need Help?