Skip to main content
Glama

maritime

by global.rootz.ship

shipping_chokepoint

Maritime chokepoint intelligence for Hormuz, Suez, Malacca, or Bab el-Mandeb. Returns authoritative EIA baseline throughput (barrels/day, % of global), a live AIS snapshot (vessels/tankers/moving/stationary) for the chokepoint, sanctioned vessels currently detected there, and dark-fleet behavioural signals (loitering + AIS gaps). This is the tool for "how is Hormuz doing".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoAlias for chokepoint (free text)
chokepointNo"Hormuz", "Suez", "Malacca", or "Bab el-Mandeb"

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the types of data returned (throughput, AIS snapshot, sanctions, dark-fleet signals) but does not mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences pack all necessary info: chokepoint list, return data types, and usage example. No fluff. Front-loaded with key action.

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 no output schema, the description provides a good list of return components with specific metrics. Lacks exact structure or handling of invalid inputs, but sufficient for most use cases.

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% with both parameters documented. Description adds value by explaining the alias covers free text and listing the exact chokepoint options. Also ties parameter usage to the rich set of return data.

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?

Description clearly states it returns chokepoint intelligence for four specified chokepoints, listing specific data types (EIA throughput, AIS snapshot, sanctioned vessels, dark-fleet signals). No sibling tool overlaps, making purpose distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit usage example ('how is Hormuz doing') and context for chokepoint queries. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the scope is clear from the description and sibling tool names.

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

All maritime 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between shipping_status and shipping_freshness (both provide freshness information) and between shipping_sanctions and shipping_sanctioned_at_eu (both deal with sanctions, though one is general and the other EU-specific). Descriptions help disambiguate, but the potential for confusion remains.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'shipping_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (e.g., shipping_chokepoint, shipping_emissions, shipping_oil_trade). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools, the server covers a broad domain (chokepoints, trade flows, emissions, fleet, sanctions, document intelligence, oil data) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose, and the count is well-scoped for a specialized maritime intelligence server.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core maritime intelligence areas: chokepoint monitoring, trade flows, emissions, fleet, sanctions, oil prices, and data freshness. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for port congestion or vessel tracking outside chokepoints), but the core workflows for sanctions, trade, and emissions are well-covered.

Resources