UNITECARGO U.S. Logistics Provider Directory

Get UNITECARGO directory statistics

get_directory_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get current public provider totals, state coverage, top states, and a live-query freshness receipt.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_directory_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top_states`	Yes	Up to ten states ordered by provider count.
`state_counts`	Yes	Provider totals keyed by U.S. state or district code.
`other_regions`	Yes	Counts for records outside recognized U.S. state codes.
`states_covered`	Yes	Count of covered U.S. states and districts.
`total_providers`	Yes	Current active, verified provider count.
`recent_providers`	Yes	Providers added in the last 30 days.
`evidence_freshness`	Yes	Live-query timestamp, latest profile update, and source.
`canonical_directory_url`	Yes	Canonical public directory link.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation that is not destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely new trait beyond the annotations: the results are 'current' and include a 'live-query freshness receipt', so the agent knows the numbers reflect a live query at call time rather than a stale cache. That is useful behavioral context that the annotations cannot express.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the output list is ordered from headline totals to the freshness receipt. Every phrase maps to a distinct part of the result, so nothing is padding.

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?

Because the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and with zero parameters the call mechanics are trivial. What is missing is only the routing guidance against sibling tools; otherwise, an agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste words on parameter behavior and instead describes what the parameterless call returns.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates concrete outputs: provider totals, state coverage, top states, and a freshness receipt. That distinguishes it from get_provider and search_providers, which return individual records rather than aggregates, but the differentiation is only implicit and never names the siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The nature of the outputs suggests aggregate and summary use, as opposed to per-provider lookup, but the description never states when to call this tool rather than get_provider or search_providers, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the noun phrase 'directory statistics'.

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

All UNITECARGO U.S. Logistics Provider Directory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?