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

Product market-access check

market_access_check

Idempotent

Free, unlimited EU/UK/US/AU product assessments with human review for a signed next-step pack. Send a plain-language message in English or Chinese; the first response already contains preliminary requirements. Follow next_action: execute it exactly as returned and answer questions by key. The first reviewed pack is free per confirmed seller email; further packs are arranged with ComplianceCN. Provide email and consent through this same tool when next_action requests them; no browser form is required. Human review requires email confirmation and reviewer sign-off.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	No	For request_review_email only: the seller's real notification email, used with their permission.
`action`	No	Follow the returned next_action. Use correct_stage_2 for seller corrections; confirm_stage_1/correct_stage_1 are legacy aliases.	continue
`answers`	No	Optional structured answers keyed by the stable question.key values returned by the previous call.
`case_id`	No	The case this call continues, from an earlier result. Omit to start a new product case.
`message`	No	The seller's initial product/market description or their latest natural-language clarification. Do not repeat information already supplied.
`language`	No	Preferred response language; inferred from the seller message when omitted.
`consent_to_contact`	No	For request_review_email: true only with the seller's permission to email them about this case. Reuse existing scoped consent; never infer it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Start with continue. Follow next_action exactly: start_stage_2 assesses evidence after the Stage 1 product profile is ready; after presenting Stage 2, use correct_stage_2 if the seller supplies a correction, otherwise call confirm_stage_2 immediately to obtain the required secure email-and-consent handoff; Stage 3 is released only after reviewer sign-off. confirm_stage_1/correct_stage_1 are legacy aliases only."New value: +"Follow the returned next_action. Use correct_stage_2 for seller corrections; confirm_stage_1/correct_stage_1 are legacy aliases."

changedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "continue",
-  "start_stage_2",
-  "confirm_stage_2",
-  "correct_stage_2",
-  "confirm_stage_1",
-  "correct_stage_1"
-]New value: +[
+  "continue",
+  "start_stage_2",
+  "confirm_stage_2",
+  "request_review_email",
+  "correct_stage_2",
+  "confirm_stage_1",
+  "correct_stage_1"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / consent_to_contact

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For request_review_email: true only with the seller's permission to email them about this case. Reuse existing scoped consent; never infer it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For request_review_email only: the seller's real notification email, used with their permission.",
+  "maxLength": 320,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 22, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / case_id / description

Previous value: -"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."New value: +"The case this call continues, from an earlier result. Omit to start a new product case."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Start with continue. Follow next_action exactly: start_stage_2 assesses evidence after the Stage 1 product profile is ready; confirm_stage_2 generates Stage 3 only after the seller confirms the Stage 2 readiness result; correct_stage_2 amends Stage 2. confirm_stage_1/correct_stage_1 are legacy aliases only."New value: +"Start with continue. Follow next_action exactly: start_stage_2 assesses evidence after the Stage 1 product profile is ready; after presenting Stage 2, use correct_stage_2 if the seller supplies a correction, otherwise call confirm_stage_2 immediately to obtain the required secure email-and-consent handoff; Stage 3 is released only after reviewer sign-off. confirm_stage_1/correct_stage_1 are legacy aliases only."

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Use continue for the initial description and clarifications. Use confirm_stage_1 only after the seller confirms the Stage 1 summary. Use correct_stage_1 with message or answers to amend it."New value: +"Start with continue. Follow next_action exactly: start_stage_2 assesses evidence after the Stage 1 product profile is ready; confirm_stage_2 generates Stage 3 only after the seller confirms the Stage 2 readiness result; correct_stage_2 amends Stage 2. confirm_stage_1/correct_stage_1 are legacy aliases only."

changedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "continue",
-  "confirm_stage_1",
-  "correct_stage_1"
-]New value: +[
+  "continue",
+  "start_stage_2",
+  "confirm_stage_2",
+  "correct_stage_2",
+  "confirm_stage_1",
+  "correct_stage_1"
+]

AddedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the multi-turn next_action workflow, human review and sign-off, email confirmation, first-pack-free pricing, and the fact that no browser form is needed. These are substantive behavioral details not inferable from readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint, and nothing contradicts 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then walks through the workflow efficiently. Minor redundancy ('free' appears twice) and unexplained domain terms like 'signed next-step pack' and 'ComplianceCN' keep it from being perfectly tight.

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 stateful, multi-turn tool with 7 parameters, the description covers starting, continuing, keyed answers, email/consent, and human review, while the output schema presumably handles return values. It still leaves the 'signed next-step pack' concept and ComplianceCN arrangement undefined, and it does not explicitly address sibling-tool boundaries.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description adds operational meaning: message should be plain language, action should mirror the returned next_action, answers are keyed, and email/consent are passed through this same tool rather than an external form. This is modest but real added value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States that the tool performs product market-access assessments across EU/UK/US/AU with human review, so the resource and geographic scope are clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the human-review and next-step-pack framing distinguishes it from the one-off regulatory checks listed nearby.

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?

Gives clear interaction guidance: start with a plain-language message, follow the returned next_action exactly, answer questions by key, and provide email/consent through this tool when requested. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the workflow context is strong.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?