Skip to main content
Glama

3DPACK.ING — 3D Bin Packing

by ing.3dpack

Pack a shipment into containers or trucks

pack_shipment

Work out how a shipment fits into shipping containers, trucks or pallets, using a real 3D bin-packing solver. Describe the cargo in plain English -- quantities, dimensions, weights, and any constraints such as fragile, non-tiltable, max stack height or a preferred container type -- and get back which containers are needed, how full each one is, anything that did not fit, and a link to an interactive 3D load plan.

Use this instead of estimating from volume. Volume arithmetic ignores stacking rules, orientation and weight limits, and overstates what fits by a wide margin on real cargo.

For cargo that must not overhang -- drums, glass, anything that must stay level -- set stability. It is the one constraint the prompt cannot express, because it governs how the solver stacks rather than what is being shipped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
speedNoHow hard the solver should look for a better arrangement. Omit to let it choose. Use 'fast' for a quick feasibility check, 'thorough' when the packing quality matters.
promptYesThe shipment, in plain English. Include quantities, dimensions with units, and weights if known. Examples: "Pack 50 boxes of 60x40x30 cm into a 20ft container"; "Load 100 fragile items 80x60x40cm, max stack 3, into a 40ft high cube"; "Ship mixed pallets: 10x euro pallets, 15x US pallets, best container mix". Truncated at 4000 characters.
stabilityNoHow much of a box must rest on what is underneath it, as a percentage of its own footprint. Omit for the standard rule of 75, which allows a quarter of a box to overhang and packs the most. Raise it for cargo that must not lean -- drums, glass, anything top-heavy -- and use 100 when every stacked box has to sit fully supported. A higher value is steadier and fits fewer items, so expect more containers or more left over.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does well: it explains the solver-based nature, the class of outputs (containers needed, fullness, non-fit items, 3D load plan link), and the trade-off that higher stability means fewer items fit. It does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or side effects, but for a computation/planning tool the behavioral picture is clear.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and return value, the second paragraph gives usage guidance, and the third focuses on the subtle stability parameter. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a remarkably complete picture: how to describe cargo, what outputs to expect, when to prefer this tool over volume estimation, and how to handle the special stability constraint. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the results without guessing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema, especially for `stability`: it explains why the prompt cannot express this constraint, how the solver uses it, and the trade-off between packing density and support. This goes beyond the schema's plain description and helps an agent craft better inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Work out how a shipment fits into shipping containers, trucks or pallets, using a real 3D bin-packing solver.' It clearly states the tool's function and the outputs it produces, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does and what it returns. There are no siblings to distinguish from, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 says 'Use this instead of estimating from volume' and explains why volume arithmetic is inadequate, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also provides specific guidance about when to set `stability`, covering an important non-obvious decision point. This fully equips an agent to choose the tool correctly and configure it appropriately.

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

All 3DPACK.ING — 3D Bin Packing 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing or overlapping purposes. The single pack_shipment operation unambiguously owns the entire packing task.

Naming Consistency5/5

The sole tool name follows the clear verb_noun pattern: pack_shipment. There are no competing naming conventions or inconsistent verb styles to create confusion.

Tool Count4/5

A one-tool server is slightly on the thin side, but this tool is substantial and fully aligned with the server's stated purpose. It is not an extreme mismatch, though additional tools like listing container types or retrieving past load plans would make the surface feel more complete.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers the full packing workflow: it accepts cargo dimensions, weights, and constraints, selects containers, reports utilization, identifies non-fitting items, and provides a visual load plan. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the server's stated domain.

Resources