Skip to main content
Glama

FreightUtils MCP Server

by io.github.SoapyRED

UN/LOCODE Lookup

unlocode_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search 116,232 UN/LOCODE transport locations worldwide — ports, airports, rail and road terminals, inland container depots and border crossings. Codes are 5 characters: a 2-letter ISO country code + a 3-character location code (GBLHR = London Heathrow, NLRTM = Rotterdam).

Provide code for an exact record, or query (name search, min 2 chars) optionally narrowed by country and function_type; limit caps results (default 20, max 100).

Behavior: read-only; exact code hits are provenance-based while fuzzy name hits report match quality via the envelope's confidence (basis match_quality); an unknown code errors with a not-found message. 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 location record(s) — code, name and name_ascii, country, subdivision, functions[], status, coordinates {lat, lon} and iata_code where assigned — under result, plus confidence, _source and citation (the FreightUtils v1 response envelope).

Limitations: an administrative code list (UNECE UN/LOCODE 2025-1) — confirm operational status and coordinates with the port or authority before critical use.

Related: airport_lookup (airport-specific records including ICAO codes), nearest_airport (find airports by coordinates).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoExact UN/LOCODE lookup (e.g. "GBLHR", "NLRTM")
limitNoMax results (default 20)
queryNoSearch by name or code (e.g. "Rotterdam", "GBLHR", "LHR")
countryNoISO 2-letter country code filter (e.g. "GB", "NL")
function_typeNoFilter by location function

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds substantial context beyond that: read-only behavior for exact code vs confidence reporting for fuzzy hits, not-found error semantics, 429 rate-limit handling with retry_after_seconds and Retry-After header, and cautions about administrative code list accuracy. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Though multi-paragraph, every sentence earns its place: overview, usage modes, behavior/rate limits, return envelope, limitations, related tools. Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. No redundant filler; the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 5 optional params, an output schema, and annotations, the description still adds essential context: return envelope specifics (confidence, _source, citation), error semantics, rate-limit handling, and realistic use limitations. It is complete enough to safely invoke the tool without prior knowledge.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, description adds valuable semantics not in schema: explains the 5-character code structure (2-letter ISO + 3-letter location code with examples), clarifies query can be name or code, and states limit default/max and min length for query. This enriches parameter understanding beyond schema definitions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource (116,232 UN/LOCODE transport locations), enumerating port/airport/rail/road/terminal types. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning related airport_lookup and nearest_airport tools, making its scope unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: exact code vs fuzzy name query, optional country/function_type narrowing, and limit behavior. Names alternatives directly: 'Related: airport_lookup ... nearest_airport ...' and even tells users to call get_subscribe_link for higher rate limits. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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