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

Forwarder will not take the battery product

check_battery_transport_documents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a freight forwarder, courier or carrier has refused or queried a battery product -- for example "my forwarder will not ship the lithium battery", "they want the UN 38.3 report", or "the airline rejected my dangerous-goods paperwork". Returns whether a UN 38.3 test summary applies to this cell and pack, the shipping marks required, and the transport documents a forwarder usually asks for. Answers immediately from the published ruleset. 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
`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
`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.
`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.
`battery_compartment_security`	No	How the battery compartment is secured. Button and coin cells carry stricter duties because ingestion is the hazard.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Read-only and idempotent behavior is already covered by annotations. The description adds useful context by saying it answers immediately from the published ruleset and explaining access/cost behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 examples and return-value sentence are concise and front-loaded. However, the later 'Access notice' paragraph covers pricing and review policy unrelated to tool selection or invocation, making the description longer than necessary.

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?

Combined with the rich input schema and output schema, the description is complete enough for safe invocation. The trigger is clear and the return scope is stated. A small gap remains in explaining how this tool relates to the general market_access_check sibling.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear use case: a freight forwarder or carrier has refused or queried a battery product, and the tool returns UN 38.3 applicability, shipping marks, and transport documents. It is specific to battery transport documents, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling compliance tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete example user scenarios. It does not state when not to use the tool or point to a specific alternative, so it is slightly below a perfect score.

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?