Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server (Apify)

by actor.apify.vinaybhosle--shippingrates-mcp

Get Inland Haulage Rates

shippingrates_inland_haulage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get inland haulage (trucking/rail) rates for moving containers between a port and an inland location.

Use this when you know the specific origin port and destination and need rate quotes. Returns route-specific rates by container type including base rate, fuel surcharges, and estimated transit times.

To discover what routes exist first, use shippingrates_inland_search. To compare rates across all carriers for the same route, use shippingrates_inland_compare.

PAID: $0.05/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: Array of { carrier, origin, destination, container_type, rate, fuel_surcharge, total, currency, transit_days, mode, delivery_mode, icd_code }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoTransport mode filter (PRE or ONC)
originYesOrigin port UN/LOCODE (e.g. INNSA, INMAA)
icd_codeNoDestination ICD UN/LOCODE filter
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
cargo_classNoCargo class filter — 'general' or 'DG' (dangerous goods). Default: general.
destinationYesInland destination city name (e.g. Ahmedabad, Delhi)
delivery_modeNoDelivery mode filter — 'ramp' (ICD/CFS pickup) or 'door' (door delivery). Default: ramp.
container_typeNoContainer type filter — e.g. 20DV, 40HC, 20RF

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds critical behavioral context: payment requirement ('PAID: $0.05/call via x402... Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions') and return format (array of fields). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, sibling differentiation, payment info, and return fields. No wasted words.

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?

Given 8 parameters (all described in schema), no output schema but return fields listed, and coverage of usage, payment, and return format, the description is fairly complete. Slight deduction for not mentioning pagination or error handling, but overall it's clear and sufficient.

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 the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions return fields but does not clarify parameter usage beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get inland haulage (trucking/rail) rates for moving containers between a port and an inland location.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (inland haulage rates), and scope (port to inland). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing related tools for route discovery and comparison.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this when you know the specific origin port and destination and need rate quotes.' It also provides clear alternatives: 'To discover what routes exist first, use shippingrates_inland_search. To compare rates across all carriers for the same route, use shippingrates_inland_compare.'

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