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

Explain claim

explain_claim

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain only a stable claim_id returned by an earlier ComplianceCN result. Do not use this for broad natural-language questions or invent an ID. Returns the claim, primary-source evidence, verification date and evidence gaps. 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	Opaque ComplianceCN product-case ID returned by the first successful free workflow call. Carry it unchanged through clarification retries, Stage 2 and human review for the same product/SKU. Never reuse it for another product or SKU.
`claim_id`	Yes
`language`	No	Response language. Defaults to Chinese.	zh

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the claim_id must be stable and from an earlier result, and the return includes claim, evidence, verification date, and evidence gaps. The access notice about market_access_check is tangential but not contradictory.

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 first sentence is strong and front-loaded, but the access notice about market_access_check is off-topic and adds unnecessary length. While still compact, the extra information could be moved to the sibling tool or omitted.

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?

With a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, constraints on input, and expected return content. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though the access notice slightly dilutes focus.

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 descriptions cover case_id and language well (67% coverage). The description adds meaning to claim_id by specifying it must be a stable claim_id from an earlier result, but does not elaborate on case_id or language. This provides some additional value beyond the 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?

The description clearly specifies the tool's function: explaining a stable claim_id from an earlier ComplianceCN result. It explicitly differentiates from broad natural-language questions and provides a distinct resource and verb, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Explain only a stable claim_id returned by an earlier ComplianceCN result' and 'Do not use this for broad natural-language questions or invent an ID.' It also points to market_access_check as the alternative for product assessments, providing clear context for tool selection.

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?