Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server (Apify)

by actor.apify.vinaybhosle--shippingrates-mcp

Compare Inland Haulage Rates

shippingrates_inland_compare
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare inland haulage rates across ALL available carriers for a port-to-ICD/city pair — sorted cheapest first.

Use this for carrier selection on inland legs — answers "which carrier offers the cheapest trucking/rail from port X to city Y?" For a single carrier's rates, use shippingrates_inland_haulage instead. To discover what routes exist, use shippingrates_inland_search first.

Ramp (ICD/CFS pickup) and door delivery rates are never mixed in one comparison — delivery_mode defaults to 'ramp'. Set delivery_mode='door' to compare door-delivery rates instead.

PAID: $0.08/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: Array of { carrier, mode, container_type, rate, currency, transit_days, weight_bracket, delivery_mode, icd_code } sorted by rate ascending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originYesOrigin port UN/LOCODE — e.g. INNSA (Nhava Sheva), CNSHA (Shanghai), SGSIN (Singapore)
icd_codeNoDestination ICD UN/LOCODE filter
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
cargo_classNoCargo class filter — 'general' or 'DG' (dangerous goods). Default: general.
destinationYesDestination city or ICD code
delivery_modeNoDelivery mode filter — 'ramp' (ICD/CFS pickup) or 'door' (door delivery). Default: ramp — ramp and door rates are never mixed in one comparison.
container_typeNoContainer type (default: 20GP)
weight_bracketNoWeight bracket filter (e.g. standard, heavy)

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context: sorted by rate ascending, payment requirement, and that ramp and door rates are never mixed. No contradiction.

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?

Approximately 120 words, well-structured with clear sections. Front-loaded with main purpose. No redundant sentences.

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 8 parameters, payment requirement, and no output schema, the description covers functionality thoroughly. It lists return fields, sorting, and mode exclusion. Very complete for agent understanding.

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%. Description adds value by explaining defaults (delivery_mode default 'ramp', cargo_class default 'general'), clarifying that ramp and door are not mixed, and providing examples for origin (UN/LOCODE).

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 clearly states it compares inland haulage rates across all carriers for a port-to-ICD/city pair, sorted cheapest first. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'shippingrates_inland_haulage' (single carrier) and 'shippingrates_inland_search' (route discovery).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (carrier selection, cheapest rate) and when not (for single carrier rates, use shippingrates_inland_haulage; to discover routes, use shippingrates_inland_search). Also mentions payment requirement ($0.08/call via x402) and behavior if not paid (returns 402).

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

All ShippingRates MCP Server (Apify) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

All 26 tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., transit vs. schedule vs. vessel schedule). Even closely related tools like dd_calculate, dd_compare, and dd_countdown are well-delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with prefix 'shippingrates_'. Compound names use underscores predictably (e.g., dd_calculate, inland_compare, vessel_schedule_options), making the naming scheme highly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

26 tools is slightly above the ideal range, but the breadth of features (rates, D&D, inland, congestion, risk, schedules, etc.) justifies the count. Each tool earns its place, and there is minimal bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all major aspects of shipping intelligence: rates, surcharges, local charges, D&D, inland haulage, congestion, risk, transit, schedules, regulatory updates, and discovery tools. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources