Skip to main content
Glama

lookup_hs_heading

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find EU CN 2026 chapters and four-digit headings by exact code or English description keywords; returns up to 25 candidates for review.

Instructions

Find EU CN 2026 chapters and four-digit headings by exact code or English description keywords. Returns up to 25 candidates for review.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_hs_heading"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add search semantics — and it does, disclosing that matching is exact-code or English-keyword and that results are capped at 25 candidates for review. The cap is valuable behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields; matching/fuzzy behavior and ordering are left unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope and query modes front-loaded before the result-limit note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies scope, query modes, and result-limit behavior. The only unaddressed item is the shape of a returned candidate, which is a minor omission given the simplicity of the 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 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: the query may be either an exact CN code or English description keywords. That is the key semantic an agent needs. It does not mention the 120-character limit or expected code formatting, but those are secondary.

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 (Find) and a specific resource (EU CN 2026 chapters and four-digit headings), plus the two accepted query modes. The sibling tools (marketplace_requirements, check_green_claims) are unrelated, so no explicit differentiation is needed.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage is clear — you have a code or English keywords and want matching CN chapters/headings — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Nothing tells the agent what to do if the lookup returns no match or 25 truncated candidates.

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