SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Air cargo unit load device specs: LD and pallet types

logistics_air_cargo_uld_specs

Read-only

Air cargo unit load device (ULD) specs: LD and pallet types with their IATA codes (AKE, AKH, PMC base P6P, etc.), internal volume (m³ and ft³), height, depth and base/overall width (mm and inches), nominal width, contour and the aircraft they fit, from the ULD table on Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). Search by LD name or IATA prefix. Tare weights and maximum gross loads vary by manufacturer and are not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: logistics_air_waybill_awb when you need air waybill check and carrier lookup: validates. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "logistics_air_cargo_uld_specs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Optional: LD name or IATA ULD code, e.g. LD3, AKE, P1P. Empty lists all.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ulds`	No
`count`	No
`query`	No
`source`	No
`licence`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the source is the Wikipedia ULD table under CC BY-SA 4.0, and tare weights and maximum gross loads are explicitly excluded — a real scope boundary an agent would otherwise assume was present.

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 scope is front-loaded, which is good, but the opening is one long run-on enumeration and the pricing paragraph ($0.002 USDC via x402, failed calls free) plus the sibling-tool sentence consume nearly half the length. Every element is defensible, yet the field list could be tightened without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the read-only profile. The description fills the remaining gaps — data provenance, known exclusions, cost model, and a pointer to the adjacent tool — leaving little an agent would need before calling it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'type' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the search-by-LD-name-or-IATA-prefix behavior and gives in-line examples (LD3-style codes such as AKE, P1P), which reinforces the schema rather than adding format rules the schema lacks.

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 names a specific resource (air cargo ULD specs: LD and pallet types) and enumerates the exact fields returned — IATA codes (AKE, AKH, PMC base P6P), internal volume in m³ and ft³, height, depth, base/overall width in mm and inches, contour, and compatible aircraft. That level of detail makes it distinguishable from neighboring logistics tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the query mechanism explicitly ('Search by LD name or IATA prefix') and redirects to logistics_air_waybill_awb for a 'different need'. What it does not say is when an agent should reach for this tool rather than, say, container or capacity tools, so there is context but no exclusions or comparison within the same job-to-be-done.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?