Skip to main content
Glama
SoapyRED

FreightUtils MCP Server

adr_lq_eq_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if dangerous goods qualify for ADR Limited Quantity (LQ) or Excepted Quantity (EQ) relief against per-inner-packaging limits. Returns item statuses and overall verdict.

Instructions

Check whether dangerous goods qualify for ADR Limited Quantity (LQ, ADR 3.4) or Excepted Quantity (EQ, ADR 3.5) relief. LQ compares each item's per-inner-packaging quantity against that substance's LQ maximum; EQ resolves the substance's E-code (E0-E5) and checks the per-inner limit, plus the per-outer limit when inner_packaging_qty is given.

Provide mode ("lq" or "eq") and 1-20 items, each with un_number, quantity and unit — ml or L for liquids, g or kg for solids; quantity is per INNER packaging, not the whole load.

Unit families: column (7a) states the limit in ONE dimension — a mass for some entries, a volume for others — and ADR supplies no density, so a mass quantity against a volume limit (or the reverse) CANNOT be compared. Those items return status 'inconclusive' with the dimension named, never a pass or a fail, and a batch holding any inconclusive item never reads overall_status 'qualifies'. Send the quantity in the unit given by lq_limit_unit to get a verdict. Multi-variant UNs: a UN number with more than one ADR Table A row (packing group / concentration variant — e.g. UN 1789 PG II LQ 1 L vs PG III LQ 5 L) needs packing_group (I|II|III) or variant_index (from adr_lookup) on that item to pin one row. Without a disambiguator the tool returns blocking_errors[AMBIGUOUS_UN_VARIANT] + human_review_required + candidates[] (each candidate's variant_index, packing_group, proper_shipping_name, limited_quantity, excepted_quantity) and NO verdict, rather than silently checking the wrong packing group. Single-row UNs are unchanged.

Behavior: deterministic reference check; each item gets a status and reason (an LQ value of "0" or code E0 means the relief is not permitted for that substance), with overall_status and summary counts across the batch. Table A rows listed "NOT SUBJECT TO ADR" (e.g. UN 1845 dry ice) get item status not_subject — outside ADR scope, neither a pass nor a fail — and an all-not-subject batch returns overall_status not_applicable; "CARRIAGE PROHIBITED" rows are not_permitted with the prohibition stated in reason. Rate-limited (anonymous use: 25 requests/day per IP): a 429 error body carries retry_after_seconds and a Retry-After header — back off and retry, or call get_subscribe_link for higher limits.

Returns: mode, overall_status (qualifies | does_not_qualify | partial | not_applicable | inconclusive), items[] (un_number, variant_index, substance, class, packing_group, lq_limit or eq_code, quantity_entered, status, reason, and scope flags where applicable), summary {total_items, qualifying, exceeding, not_permitted, not_subject?, inconclusive?} and the ADR chapter references under result — or, when a UN is ambiguous, human_review_required + candidates[] with blocking_errors, plus confidence, _source and citation (the FreightUtils v1 response envelope).

Limitations: a quantity-threshold check only — LQ/EQ relief also requires packaging, marking and documentation conformity that this tool does not assess; not legal advice, verify against the current UNECE ADR text.

Related: adr_lookup (the per-substance LQ/EQ values + variant_index), adr_exemption_calculator (the 1.1.3.6 load-points route instead).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesCheck mode: "lq" (Limited Quantity, ADR 3.4) or "eq" (Excepted Quantity, ADR 3.5).
itemsYesItems to check (1-20 per call).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
resultYes
_sourceYes
citationYes
validityNo
warningsNo
confidenceYes
blocking_errorsNo
envelope_versionYes
normalized_inputNo
Install Server

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them; it adds substantial behavioral context: deterministic reference check, per-item status/reason, ambiguous UNs producing blocking_errors and candidates with no verdict, not_subject/not_permitted states, rate limits with 429 retry behavior, and the limitation that packaging/marking/documentation compliance is not assessed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but proportioned to the domain's complexity. Every section—input requirements, unit families, ambiguous UNs, statuses, return envelope, limitations, related tools—adds necessary information and is front-loaded with the core purpose before expanding into edge cases.

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?

Given a complex tool with an output schema, the description still fully prepares an agent: it covers all input modes, edge cases, status values, overall_status possibilities, error behavior, rate limiting, and operational limitations. Nothing required to select and invoke the tool correctly is left to inference or missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description compements meaningfully beyond the schema: 'quantity is per INNER packaging, not the whole load'; it explains mass-vs-volume dimension incompatibility leading to inconclusive status; and it clarifies when packing_group or variant_index are needed and when inner_packaging_qty applies in EQ mode.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether dangerous goods qualify for ADR Limited Quantity (LQ, ADR 3.4) or Excepted Quantity (EQ, ADR 3.5) relief.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to adr_lookup for per-substance values and adr_exemption_calculator for the 1.1.3.6 load-points route.

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?

Usage context is explicit: 'Provide mode ("lq" or "eq") and 1-20 items,' with required fields and units spelled out. It also tells agents when to use related tools instead, and advises 'Send the quantity in the unit given by lq_limit_unit to get a verdict,' plus the adr_exemption_calculator alternative for load-points checks.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SoapyRED/freightutils-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server