Skip to main content
Glama

FreightUtils MCP Server

by io.github.SoapyRED

Incoterms 2020 Lookup

incoterms_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up the 11 Incoterms 2020 trade rules — who pays for transport, insurance and customs clearance, and where risk transfers from seller to buyer. 7 rules work for any transport mode (EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAP, DPU, DDP); 4 are sea/inland-waterway only (FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF).

Provide code for one rule, category (any_mode | sea_only) for a filtered list, or neither to list all 11. Behavior: read-only reference; an unknown code errors with the valid code list. 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 rule record — name, category, summary, seller_responsibility, buyer_responsibility, risk_transfer, cost_transfer, insurance, export/import clearance, best_for and watch_out — under result, plus confidence, _source and citation (the FreightUtils v1 response envelope).

Limitations: summarised guidance on ICC Incoterms 2020; the ICC publication is the binding text and specific contract wording prevails.

Related: uk_duty_calculator (accepts an incoterm when composing the CIF value), shipment_summary (composite analysis).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoIncoterm code (3 letters, e.g., "FOB", "CIF")
categoryNoFilter by mode

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses error behavior (unknown code returns valid code list), rate limits (25 requests/day per IP with 429 retry semantics), and limitations (summarised guidance, binding ICC text). This adds significant context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Every sentence contributes value. The description is well-structured: purpose, mode classification, usage instructions, behavior, return fields, limitations, and related tools. No redundancy or filler—information is dense but organized.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional params, output schema present), the description is fully complete. It covers parameter combinations, error handling, rate limits, response structure, limitations, and related tools. There is nothing left ambiguous for an agent deciding to use and invoke this tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema covers parameter descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds meaning about how the parameters interact: code for a single rule, category for filtering, or neither for all results. It also clarifies the category enum values (any_mode vs. sea_only) with concrete examples of the rules belonging to each.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('the 11 Incoterms 2020 trade rules'). It defines exactly what information is provided (who pays for transport, insurance, customs, and risk transfer), which distinguishes it from other lookup tools in the sibling list.

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 explains when to use each input combination: provide a code for one rule, category for a filtered list, or neither for all 11. It also notes the transport-mode applicability (any mode vs. sea-only) and lists related tools (uk_duty_calculator, shipment_summary), giving clear alternatives and context.

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