Query EU MRV vessel emissions data — CO2, fuel consumption, time at sea for 22,543 vessels (2018-2024). Search by IMO, ship type, or year — or a free-text query (7-digit = IMO, else ship type/name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imo | No | IMO number (7 digits) | |
| year | No | Reporting period year (2018-2024) | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text: IMO number or ship type/name | |
| ship_type | No | Ship type filter (e.g., "Oil tanker", "LNG carrier") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source, metrics, years, and vessel count. The tool is clearly read-only (query), and no contradictory statements exist. It could add details like pagination or rate limits, but it is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences. The first introduces the tool's purpose and scope; the second details search parameters. No superfluous words, and information is front-loaded. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
In the absence of an output schema, the description hints at return fields (CO2, fuel consumption, time at sea). It mentions vessel count and year range. It does not specify pagination or limit behavior, but overall it is fairly complete for a query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 80%, and the description adds value by explaining the free-text query behavior (IMO vs type/name), clarifying the IMO parameter is 7 digits, and providing examples for ship_type. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries EU MRV vessel emissions data, specifying the metrics (CO2, fuel consumption, time at sea) and scope (22,543 vessels, 2018-2024). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on emissions, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains how to search (by IMO, ship type, year, or free-text query) and clarifies the free-text logic (7-digit = IMO, else type/name). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.