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

Label and packaging review

check_label_and_packaging

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a seller is unsure their label, artwork or packaging is correct -- for example "is my CE label right?", "what warnings do I need on the box?", or "does the packaging need an importer address?". Returns the marks, symbols, warning language and responsible-entity details the destination market requires on the artwork, and which of them are evidenced. 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.
`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.
`food_contact_material`	No	The material that touches food. Migration limits and test methods differ by material.
`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.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: trueebb, openWorldHint: false, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, so the tool is clearly safe, read-only, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns evidence status and answers immediately from a published ruleset, but the description does not disclose that it is a 'review' that may not be definitive, nor does it address the meaning of the 'preliminary' nature or that it doesn't verify individual documents. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it adds limited behavioral context beyond them.

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 moderately long but dense with relevant information. The primary trigger is front-loaded, and the access notice is placed at the end. However, it includes some redundant detail (e.g., 'the first call returns preliminary requirements, and a different product simply starts its own case') that could be condensed without losing meaning, and the parenthetical example list adds length. Overall it's efficient for a tool with 22 parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (22 parameters, 90 evidence enum values, output schema present), the description provides a high-level overview of use and access but does not explain the overall workflow (e.g., that it's part of a case, how to start it, how to continue with a case_id). The schema descriptions cover parameter semantics in depth, and the output schema likely explains return values, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it omits guidance on how to interact with the 'evidence_checklist' and 'case_id' continuation, which an agent might need. It is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of the 22 parameters with detailed descriptions that frequently explain how each parameter affects the check (e.g., has_radio -> 'Decides the RED conformity route'), which is already rich. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details, but given the high schema coverage, it correctly relies on the schema. The description also hints at combined usage (e.g., omitting optional hints when product_description contains enough info), though it doesn't detail every field. This slightly enhances the schema's guidance.

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 opens with a direct statement of what the tool does: it checks whether a seller's label, artwork, or packaging is correct for a destination market, listing example questions. It explicitly enumerates the deliverable (marks, symbols, warning language, responsible-entity details, and evidence status), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools, which either handle broader market access or specific compliance checks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description begins with 'Use when a seller is unsure their label, artwork or packaging is correct,' establishing a clear trigger condition. It also clarifies scope by contrasting with market_access_check: the first call is free and unlimited, a different product starts its own case, and only a second human-reviewed pack is arranged with ComplianceCN. This differentiation is explicit and actionable.

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?