Skip to main content
Glama
seelpeed-debug

export-controls-agent

by seelpeed-debug
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Determine whether the CCL requires a licence

determine_license_requirement

Determines license requirements for an ECCN and destination using the Commerce Country Chart, resolving special cases like embargoed destinations and footnotes.

Instructions

Work the Commerce Country Chart (15 C.F.R. Part 738, Supplement No. 1) for an ECCN and a destination, following the 738.4(a)(2) procedure. Reads every Reason for Control in the entry, resolves each to a chart column or to the prose destination scope the entry states instead (273 of the 1536 License Requirements rows state a scope rather than naming a column), and reports each requirement separately because 738.4(a)(2)(ii)(A) requires each one to be overcome on its own. Handles the cases a table lookup misses: the four embargoed destinations whose rows carry no marks at all, the footnotes that require a licence where the grid is empty, destinations that have no row and inherit another country's, and the 738.3(a)(1) entries that bypass the chart entirely. An absent mark is reported as 'no_chart_requirement', never as clearance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eccnYesECCN, ideally with subparagraph, e.g. 3B001.c, 3A090.a, 0A501.y. Rows in one entry are scoped to different subparagraphs and resolve differently, so a bare 3B001 will return a conditional answer.
destinationYesDestination country. Matched against the rows of Supplement No. 1 to Part 738, whose spellings differ from the Part 740 Country Group tables. Hong Kong resolves to the China row.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it explains how every Reason for Control is resolved, that each requirement is reported separately, how unusual destinations and footnotes are handled, and that an absent mark is reported as 'no_chart_requirement' rather than clearance. This is well beyond a typical description.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the core procedure and then adds high-value nuance about edge cases and result semantics without redundancy or filler. The density is justified by the legal complexity of the tool.

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 complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers the procedure, per-requirement reporting, edge cases, and a critical result sentinel. It stops short of fully specifying the output structure, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema already provides rich parameter details, including ECCN subparagraph guidance and Hong Kong resolving to the China row. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Work the Commerce Country Chart ... for an ECCN and a destination'. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like classify_eccn and analyze_license_exceptions by focusing specifically on the Part 738 chart and the 738.4(a)(2) procedure.

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?

The tool's usage context is clear: use it when you need to determine whether the CCL requires a licence for a given ECCN and destination. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is unambiguous and the edge cases it handles make the intended invocation clear.

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