Skip to main content
Glama

Datalastic Vessel Tracking & Maritime Intelligence

by com.datalastic

Request an async report

report_request

Submit an async report job. Reports are generated in the background and can take a while (seconds to many minutes), so this returns a report_id and an initial status (PENDING) — it does NOT wait. Submit ONCE, then poll report_status with the returned report_id until DONE, which yields a result_url. Do not resubmit while a job is running. When done, give the user the result_url to download; the server never downloads report files itself.

Supported report_type values:

  • request_usage: a FREE log of your account's API usage (endpoint, credits, timestamp); optional from/to (<=31 days), default last month.

  • vessel_list: the full vessel database (no other parameters).

  • port_list: the full ports database (no other parameters).

  • inradius_history: all vessels that passed through an area in a time window; REQUIRES lat, lon, radius (<=50 NM), from and to (<=7 days apart).

Note: vessel_list, port_list and inradius_history consume API credits (vessel_list and inradius_history can be substantial) — it's good to tell the user before submitting. For the add-on bulk datasets (ownership, inspections, etc.) use intel_report_request instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd date YYYY-MM-DD. Optional for request_usage (<=31 days after from); required for inradius_history (<=7 days after from).
latNoCenter latitude. Required for inradius_history.
lonNoCenter longitude. Required for inradius_history.
fromNoStart date YYYY-MM-DD. Optional for request_usage; required for inradius_history.
radiusNoRadius in nautical miles, max 50. Required for inradius_history.
report_typeYesWhich report to generate: request_usage, vessel_list, port_list, or inradius_history.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
report_idYes
created_atYes
result_urlYes
updated_atYes
report_typeYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses async nature, return value, polling requirement, credit consumption for some types, and that the server never downloads files. Detailed behavioral context is given.

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 well-structured and concise. It front-loads the main purpose and flow, then lists report types in a clear bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 (async, multiple report types with different parameters), the description covers all necessary aspects: submission, polling, resubmission prohibition, credit consumption, and sibling tool differentiation. The presence of an output schema further supports completeness.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining supported report_type values and their specific parameter requirements (e.g., optional for request_usage, required for inradius_history) and constraints like radius max 50 NM and date ranges. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 submits an async report job, returns a report_id and initial status, and explains the async flow. It distinguishes from sibling tools like intel_report_request for add-on datasets and report_status for polling.

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 instructs to submit once, then poll until done, and not to resubmit while running. Advises informing the user about credit consumption before submitting certain report types. Also directs users to intel_report_request for add-on datasets.

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

All Datalastic Vessel Tracking & Maritime Intelligence 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: vessel tracking (get_vessel, get_vessel_pro, get_vessel_history, get_vessel_info, estimated_vessel_position), registry search (find_vessels, find_ports), port details (get_port), weather (get_weather), sea route (sea_route), async reports (report_*), and intelligence modules (intel_*). Even similar tools like find_vessels vs get_vessel are well-differentiated by their descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase underscore pattern with a verb_noun structure (e.g., get_vessel, find_ports, sea_route). The intel_* tools use a uniform prefix for intelligence operations, maintaining predictability across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, this server is at the upper boundary of the borderline range. While the tools are well-organized and necessary for the comprehensive maritime intelligence domain, the count feels slightly heavy compared to an ideal 3-15 tool scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete: it covers vessel tracking (live, historic, estimated), registry search, port details, weather, sea route calculation, async report management, and a full suite of intelligence reports (casualties, inspections, ownership, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for maritime vessel tracking and intelligence tasks.

Resources