Skip to main content
Glama

check_skin_contact_declaration

Read-only

Check supplier substance declarations against per-market restricted-substance limits for skin-contact materials and product categories to verify compliance.

Instructions

Check a supplier substance declaration against per-market restricted-substance limits (Enterprise).

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_skin_contact_declaration"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketsNocomma-separated subset of eu,uk,us_federal,us_california,canada; blank = all. Default: "".
declarationNoAlternatively, raw JSON of {substance: {"value": <n>, "unit": "ppm"|"mg/kg"|"%"|"nd"}}, e.g. '{"lead": {"value": 40, "unit": "ppm"}, "DEHP": {"value": 0.3, "unit": "%"}}'. Default: "".
material_idNoAn ingested material id (from list_ingested_materials) whose supplier substance declaration was ingested. Preferred path. Default: "".
material_scopeNo"plastic" (default), "metal" (metal-fill), or "vinyl" (PVC). Default: "plastic".
product_categoryNo"adult" (worn wearable) or "children". Default: "adult".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / declaration / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Alternatively, raw JSON of {substance: {\"value\": <n>, \"unit\": \"ppm\"|\"mg/kg\"|\"%\"|\"nd\"}}, e.g. '{\"lead\": {\"value\": 40, \"unit\": \"ppm\"}, \"DEHP\": {\"value\": 0.3, \"unit\": \"%\"}}'. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / markets / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"comma-separated subset of eu,uk,us_federal,us_california,canada; blank = all. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / material_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"An ingested material id (from list_ingested_materials) whose supplier substance declaration was ingested. Preferred path. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / material_scope / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"plastic\"."New value: +"\"plastic\" (default), \"metal\" (metal-fill), or \"vinyl\" (PVC). Default: \"plastic\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / product_category / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"adult\"."New value: +"\"adult\" (worn wearable) or \"children\". Default: \"adult\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that the comparison is per-market and that the feature is Enterprise-gated — but says nothing about what the check returns (pass/fail per market, offending substances) or how limits are resolved when multiple markets are requested.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the comparison standard come first. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves little room for the routing context the tool needs.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With five optional parameters, no output schema, and a dual input path (raw declaration JSON vs material_id), the description covers only the high-level intent. The schema carries the parameter detail and annotations carry the safety profile, but an agent still lacks any indication of the result shape or how multi-market results are reported.

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 100%, so all five parameters, including the markets list and the two alternative declaration input paths, are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'per-market' and 'supplier substance declaration' without adding format or precedence guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Check a supplier substance declaration') and the standard it is checked against ('per-market restricted-substance limits'). An agent can tell this is a compliance/screening tool rather than a data-ingestion tool like ingest_material_datasheet, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely related check_skin_contact_suitability sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_skin_contact_suitability, check_chemical_resistance, or read_material_datasheet. The only usage signal is the '(Enterprise)' tier tag, which is a prerequisite rather than routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools