cbm

Calculate CBM & Container Fit

calculate_cbm

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate total shipment volume (CBM / cubic metres and CFT / cubic feet), total weight, and how that cargo fits into standard shipping containers (20ft Standard, 40ft Standard, 40ft High Cube). Use this whenever someone asks how much space a shipment takes, how many cubic metres or CBM their boxes / pallets / cartons add up to, whether cargo will fit in a container, what container size they need, or how full a container will be. Accepts a list of items with length, width, height, weight and quantity in metric (cm, kg) or imperial (in, lb) units; returns total CBM, CFT, total weight, and per-container fill percentage with an overload flag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	The cargo line items to total up.
`unitSystem`	No	Units for the item dimensions and weight. 'metric' = centimetres and kilograms; 'imperial' = inches and pounds.	metric

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`totalCbm`	Yes
`totalCft`	Yes
`containers`	Yes
`calculatorUrl`	Yes
`totalWeightKg`	Yes
`totalWeightLbs`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return details (total CBM, CFT, weight, fill percentage, overload flag) that go beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention any constraints on side effects.

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?

The description is concise, three sentences front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids redundancy and uses efficient wording. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated use cases), but overall effective.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-unit calculation with container fitting), the description explains all return values (CBM, CFT, total weight, fill percentage, overload flag). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, it is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates that items have length, width, height, weight, quantity in metric or imperial units, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 calculates total shipment volume (CBM, CFT), total weight, and container fit. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'CBM & Container Fit' are specific, and since there are no sibling tools, no 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 Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool, including queries about shipment space, cubic metres/CFT, container fit, and container size. It provides clear context without needing exclusions or alternatives.

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

All cbm tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity or overlap with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'calculate_cbm' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and descriptive.

Tool Count4/5

Having a single tool for a very specific calculation service is slightly below the ideal range but still appropriate, as the server's scope is intentionally narrow.

Completeness5/5

The tool fully covers its intended domain of CBM and container fill calculations, leaving no obvious gaps for its stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?