Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

divux

by si.divux
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cosmetics: what's in skincare and makeup, and EU rules

check_cosmetic
Read-only

Returns what the EU Cosmetics Regulation says about the ingredients of a skincare, makeup, hair or body product, from the European Commission's CosIng annexes: banned (Annex II, with any exception), restricted with the maximum concentration, where it may be used and the required warnings (Annex III), fragrance allergens the EU requires on the label, and preservatives, UV filters and colorants allowed only within limits. Inputs are an INCI ingredient list, or a product name with brand or a barcode looked up in Open Beauty Facts. Recalls and EU Safety Gate alerts naming the brand (EU, UK and Canada) are included. The result does not rate products or say what suits a person's skin. Applies to questions about what the EU rules say about the ingredients of a skincare, makeup, hair or body product. Results report what the official sources say and are not a safety assessment. Not medical advice. Medicines and foods are outside this result.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_cosmetic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barcodeNoUPC or EAN on the package
productNoProduct name with brand, e.g. 'CeraVe Moisturizing Cream'
ingredientsNoThe INCI ingredient list, comma separated, e.g. 'Aqua, Glycerin, Niacinamide, Phenoxyethanol'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the upstream sources (CosIng annexes, Open Beauty Facts lookup, EU Safety Gate and Canadian/UK recalls) and hard limits ('does not rate products', 'not a safety assessment', 'not medical advice'). It does not address latency, rate limits, or what happens when a lookup misses.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core output description before scope and disclaimers, and every major clause carries information. However, the closing run-on ('what the official sources say and are not a safety assessment. Not medical advice.') partially restates the earlier 'does not rate products or say what suits a person's skin', so there is modest redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, listing the categories of findings (banned, concentration limits, usage sites, warnings, allergens, recalls) an agent would receive. Scope limits and disclaimers are complete for a three-optional-parameter read-only lookup tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that inputs may be an INCI list, a product name with brand, or a barcode resolved through Open Beauty Facts. That clarifies the barcode parameter's resolution behavior beyond the schema's one-line 'UPC or EAN on the package', though it doesn't state whether parameters are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns what the EU Cosmetics Regulation says about the ingredients of a skincare, makeup, hair or body product') and enumerates the exact regulatory content returned (Annex II banned, Annex III restricted, fragrance allergens, preservatives/UV filters/colorants). This clearly separates it from siblings like check_food or check_medicine.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to 'questions about what the EU rules say about the ingredients of a skincare, makeup, hair or body product' and excludes medicines and foods, which implicitly routes to check_medicine/check_food. It stops short of naming those sibling tools directly, so the agent must infer the routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All divux toolsInspect
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