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

Compare markets

compare_market_requirements

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare what the same product needs across 2-4 of the EU, UK, US and Australia. Answers immediately from the published ruleset -- no case, no account, no follow-up. Send a category and the markets; partial product facts are fine, and it still returns a presentable comparison. Any optional_refinement_questions are non-blocking: show them if useful, but do not ask them automatically or re-run. For a full readiness assessment of one product, use market_access_check. 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`	Yes
`category`	Yes	Product category
`language`	No	Response language. Defaults to Chinese.	zh
`age_group`	No	Intended user age. Decides whether toy safety rules apply and which small-parts and warning duties follow.
`food_type`	No	The food the product will contact. Simulant selection for migration testing depends on it.
`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.
`is_sunscreen`	No	Whether the product is sold as sun protection. Sunscreens carry separate testing and labelling duties.
`repeated_use`	No	Whether the article is single-use or reused. Repeated use requires migration testing across successive cycles.
`verified_only`	No	Exclude rules not yet checked against primary sources. Default false: unverified material is included but labelled via review_status and the trust envelope.
`eu_destination`	No	Destination member state, where it changes the answer. Language and producer-registration duties differ across the EU.
`contact_duration`	No	How long the product touches food in normal use. Long-term contact triggers stricter migration testing.
`supply_chain_role`	No	The seller's role in the chain. Decides which duties are theirs rather than the manufacturer's or importer's.
`claims_therapeutic`	No	Whether the product claims to treat, prevent or cure anything. A therapeutic claim moves a cosmetic into a different regime.
`contact_temperature`	No	The temperature at contact. Hot fill and cooking raise migration limits and change the test.
`ingredients_reviewed`	No	Whether the full ingredient list has already been checked against restricted-substance annexes.
`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.
`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.
`battery_compartment_security`	No	How the battery compartment is secured. Button and coin cells carry stricter duties because ingestion is the hazard.
`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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful runtime behavior: immediate answers with no case/account/follow-up, tolerance for partial product facts, non-blocking optional_refinement_questions that must be shown but not asked automatically, and the free/unlimited access model. This is substantial value-added context that annotations alone could not convey.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded and the routing to market_access_check comes early. The final access-billing paragraph is somewhat verbose and marketing-toned ('free and unlimited'), but it does carry genuine billing/account clarification. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but well-structured.

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?

For a 25-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose, invocation, behavioral traits, sibling routing, and the access model. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call it. The high schema coverage carries the parameter burden, so little 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 96%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail (e.g., age_group, battery_type, eu_destination). The description's only param-level contribution is highlighting the two required fields and noting that partial facts are acceptable. That modest addition meets the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare what the same product needs across 2-4 of the EU, UK, US and Australia.' This clearly distinguishes it from market_access_check, which is named explicitly as the single-market readiness alternative. An agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation guidance ('Send a category and the markets; partial product facts are fine') and names the alternative with its selection condition ('For a full readiness assessment of one product, use market_access_check'). The access notice further clarifies when the ComplianceCN human-reviewed pack path applies, leaving no ambiguity about 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?