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

EU declaration basis

check_eu_declaration_basis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a buyer, customs authority or distributor wants the EU Declaration of Conformity -- for example "customs is asking for the DoC", "my buyer wants the declaration", or "which directives do I cite?". Returns the legislation and standards a Declaration of Conformity would cite for this product, the evidence held against each, and the fields that still need confirming before anyone signs. This maps the basis for a declaration; it does not issue or sign one. 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
`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.
`is_childrens_product`	No	Whether the product is marketed as a children's product; keep unknown when not established.
`food_contact_material`	No	The material that touches food. Migration limits and test methods differ by material.
`includes_mains_charger`	No	Whether a mains plug, wall charger or power adapter ships in the box. A supplied charger is separately in scope.
`is_electrically_operated`	No	Whether the toy is electrically operated, including mains-powered or battery-powered operation.
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond those hints: 'Answers immediately from the published ruleset', 'maps the basis... does not issue or sign', and the access notice covering free/unlimited calls plus the separately arranged human-reviewed pack. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: trigger conditions first, then outputs, then exclusion and behavior. The access notice at the end adds useful context but lengthens the description; overall there is no fluff, and every section earns its place.

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 tool with 21 parameters, 0 required, and a full output schema, the description covers purpose, output content, exclusions, response speed, and access model. An agent has sufficient context to decide to call it and interpret the result without needing to read the schema first.

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 itself does not elaborate on individual parameters, leaving that to the schema. It provides a high-level output summary but no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema's own rich descriptions.

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 specific users (buyer, customs authority, distributor) and the exact purpose: mapping the basis for an EU Declaration of Conformity. It gives example trigger phrases and states it returns legislation/standards, evidence held, and outstanding fields, while explicitly distinguishing itself from issuing or signing a declaration. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_us_import_certification.

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 'Use when...' and provides concrete example requests, plus an explicit exclusion ('does not issue or sign one'). It references market_access_check and explains when a different product starts its own case, though it doesn't systematically name sibling alternatives like check_label_and_packaging. The trigger context is clear enough for correct routing.

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?