Skip to main content
Glama

Air Cargo ULD Lookup

uld_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up air-cargo ULD (Unit Load Device) specifications — 16 types spanning lower-deck containers (AKE/LD3 and family), main-deck pallets (PMC, PAG and family) and temperature-controlled units. Each record carries external/internal/door dimensions (cm), tare and max gross weight (kg), usable volume (m³), deck position and compatible aircraft.

Provide type as an IATA code ("AKE", "PMC") or slug ("ake-ld3"); omit it to list all 16; category (container | pallet | special) and deck (lower | main) filter the list.

Behavior: read-only; an unknown type errors with the valid list; per-record provenance (sources, audited_at, decision_rationale) is included. 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 ULD record (or filtered list) under result, plus confidence, _source and citation (the FreightUtils v1 response envelope).

Limitations: specs are compiled from manufacturer and carrier-published sources with ≥7 cited sources per record. Provenance is PENDING, not verified — read the envelope's provenance_status rather than this sentence. Second-agent coverage is now COMPLETE — every cited record-URL pairing has been opened and verdicted by a second agent, and 145 of 148 citations carry a timestamped read (the 3 without one were never opened, and say so). COVERAGE IS NOT AGREEMENT, which is why provenance is still pending: reading every page is what made the disagreements visible, not what resolved them. The second agent also WITHDRAWS stamps — pages a first pass had confirmed turned out not to list the code, or to disagree once somebody read the words around them — so treat an unstamped citation as evidence that was tried and failed, not evidence not yet gathered. CORROBORATION IS COUNTED BY PUBLISHER, NOT BY URL: the 148 citations resolve to 125 distinct sources, because several records cite one publisher at several of its own addresses (one carrier's pallet table appears in three of its documents) and several forwarders republish a single upstream template. Two citations of the same source cannot corroborate each other, so a long source list is not the same as a well-corroborated record. Treat tare_weight with particular caution: it is confirmed by no non-tertiary source on 13 of the 16 records. PGA's 565 kg is now read-confirmed by one carrier (Cathay, basis stated on the page as including nets) while two other carrier pages publish 535 kg and 505-545 kg on that same basis, so it is the top of a contested band rather than an agreed figure. Confidence is medium and a PROVENANCE_PENDING advisory rides every response. Pallet records (PMC, PAG, PGA, PLA, PAJ, PMCQ7) have NO internal dimensions — a pallet has no walls or roof; read max_build_up_height_cm for the aircraft contour ceiling and do not multiply dimensions to get a volume. Airline-specific ULD variants still differ; confirm operationally critical dimensions with the carrier.

Related: chargeable_weight_calculator (what the cargo inside is billed at), container_lookup (the sea-freight equivalent), airline_lookup (whose aircraft it flies on).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckNoFilter by deck position
typeNoULD code (e.g., "AKE", "PMC") or slug (e.g., "ake-ld3"). Omit to list all.
categoryNoFilter by ULD category

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses rate limits, 429 retry semantics, provenance status, data quality caveats, and the meaning of PENDING provenance. It also explains the envelope structure and pallet-specific quirks, adding substantial context without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is thorough but verbose, running into a long block of text without clear section breaks. While front-loaded with the core purpose, it then spends many sentences on provenance and data quality nuances that, while valuable, could be condensed or structured. It earns a 3 for being overlong, not for lacking substance.

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 complexity (16 record types, filters, rate limits, output envelope, provenance), the description covers all critical aspects: return format, error behavior, limitations, and related tools. No significant gap remains; it even explains the envelope's provenance_status and the subtlety of corroboration counting.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, but the description enriches them: explains type accepts IATA codes or slugs, omit to list all, and clarifies that category/deck filter the list. It also warns that pallets lack internal dimensions, directly affecting how parameters map to 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up air-cargo ULD specifications, with specifics on the 16 types and their attributes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming related tools (chargeable_weight_calculator, container_lookup, airline_lookup) and clarifying scope (air cargo vs sea freight).

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: omit type to list all, use category/deck filters, and error handling for unknown types. It gives alternatives to related tools and advises confirming critical dimensions with the carrier. This is rich, actionable guidance for when and how to use the tool.

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

Try in Browser

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.