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

US certification and entry filing

check_us_import_certification

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a US importer, customs broker or buyer needs certification or entry-filing data -- for example "my importer wants a CPC", "do I need a GCC?", "what does CBP need at entry?", or "the buyer asked for the FCC SDoC". Returns whether a CPC or GCC applies, the supporting test evidence, the US responsible-party details, and the same data needed at entry. 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
`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.
`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.
`toy_chemical_assessment_complete`	No	Whether a chemical safety assessment covering migration limits has already been completed for this toy.

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, which the description does not contradict. The description adds operational context by stating 'Answers immediately from the published ruleset,' indicating a lightweight, non-custom analysis. It also clarifies that the tool returns specific data elements, providing behavioral insight beyond the 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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and examples, which is good. However, the 'Access notice' about market_access_check is a long aside about pricing and a sibling tool; it is tangential to the tool's core function and could be relocated to reduce verbosity. Still, the structure is logical and not excessively long.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, but none required) and the presence of a full output schema, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It explains the overall purpose, the trigger scenarios, and the returned data. The extensive parameter details are adequately covered in the schema, so the description does not need to enumerate all parameters.

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 does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives high-level context about what the tool does. Since the schema fully documents every parameter, the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to provide US certification and entry-filing data for importers, brokers, or buyers. It gives specific trigger examples ('my importer wants a CPC', 'do I need a GCC?', 'what does CBP need at entry?', 'the buyer asked for the FCC SDoC') and states exactly what it returns ('whether a CPC or GCC applies, the supporting test evidence, the US responsible-party details, and the same data needed at entry'). This distinguishes it from EU-focused siblings like check_eu_declaration_basis.

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 provides explicit trigger conditions and examples that indicate when to use this tool. It also contrasts with market_access_check, mentioning that product assessment through that tool is free and unlimited, implying this tool is for certification-specific queries. However, it does not explicitly say 'use X instead for EU or battery' but the examples are narrowly US-focused, making the use case clear without stating exclusions.

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?