Skip to main content
Glama

FreightUtils MCP Server

by io.github.SoapyRED

Container Lookup

container_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get ISO shipping-container specifications, with optional load-fit maths. Covers 10 types: 20ft/40ft standard, 40ft and 45ft high-cube, 20ft/40ft reefer, 20ft/40ft open-top and 20ft/40ft flat-rack.

Provide type as a slug (e.g. "20ft-standard", "40ft-high-cube") for one container's record; omit it to list all 10. Add item dimensions (item_length_cm/width_cm/height_cm, optional item_weight_kg and item_quantity) to also compute how many such items fit.

Behavior: read-only reference data with per-record provenance (sources, audited_at, decision_rationale); an unknown type errors with the valid slug list. Fit calculations are geometric best-effort — they do not model load distribution, securing or mixed cargo. Rate-limited (anonymous use: 25 requests/day per IP): a 429 error body carries retry_after_seconds and a Retry-After header — back off and retry, or call get_subscribe_link for higher limits.

Returns: the container record — internal/external/door dimensions (cm), capacity_cbm, tare_weight_kg, max_gross_kg, max_payload_kg and euro/GMA pallet counts — under result, plus confidence, _source and citation (the FreightUtils v1 response envelope).

Limitations: manufacturer-typical specs, provenance pending independent verification (the envelope's provenance_status says so) — actual equipment varies by lessor and line; confirm against the carrier's equipment guide.

Related: validate (checks a container NUMBER's ISO 6346 check digit — not specs), cbm_calculator / consignment_calculator (the cargo volume to fill it), uld_lookup (the air-freight equivalent).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoContainer slug (e.g., "20ft-standard", "40ft-high-cube"). Omit to list all.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
resultYes
_sourceYes
citationYes
validityNo
warningsNo
confidenceYes
blocking_errorsNo
envelope_versionYes
normalized_inputNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds rate limits (25/day with retry_after_seconds), error behavior (unknown type yields valid slug list), best-effort fit calculations, and provenance caveats, giving rich behavioral context.

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 with clear sections (usage, behavior, returns, limitations, related) and every sentence adds value. Despite its length, it is front-loaded with purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, return envelope, limitations, rate limits, and alternatives. Since an output schema exists, it need not repeat return field details, but it still mentions key output fields. The only slight gap is the phantom item dimension parameters, but overall it is highly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The type parameter is well explained with concrete slug examples and list-all behavior, but the description mentions 'Add item dimensions' parameters (item_length_cm, etc.) that are not present in the input schema. This mismatch could mislead an agent into invoking with unsupported parameters, reducing clarity.

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 'Get ISO shipping-container specifications, with optional load-fit maths' and enumerates the 10 container types covered, distinguishing it from siblings like uld_lookup and validate by explicitly naming them in the Related section.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to provide a type slug vs omit it to list all, and names related tools (validate, cbm_calculator, uld_lookup) with their different purposes, providing clear alternatives and exclusions.

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

All FreightUtils MCP Server 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools cluster into clear domains and the descriptions are detailed, but there are several overlapping pairs: consignment_calculator vs shipment_summary, cbm_calculator vs unit_converter, and validate vs resolve_reference all have fuzzy boundaries. An agent could plausibly mis-select between the composite calculators or between identifier-handling tools despite the helpful cross-references.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is mostly consistent: reference tools use *_lookup, calculation tools use *_calculator, and checks use *_check. Exceptions like validate, resolve_reference, nearest_airport, and shipment_summary break the dominant pattern slightly, but all names are snake_case and generally predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this sits at the heavy end of the range for an MCP server. The broad freight/logistics scope justifies many of them, but several single-purpose calculators could have been consolidated or grouped, making the surface feel larger and more redundant than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The server covers ADR dangerous-goods rules, multi-modal freight calculations, equipment lookups, identifier validation, customs/trade data, and emissions estimation. Minor gaps exist—no routing/geocoding, no SCAC/BIC coverage, no customs filing—but core freight-reference and calculation workflows are well supported.

Resources