SiteCheck Trade & Energy

US Customs ACE system status from CBP's Cargo Systems

logistics_cbp_ace_system_status

Read-only

US Customs ACE system status from CBP's Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS): latest messages for ACE/ABI with number, date, title, link and a type (outage, delay, resolved, maintenance window, quota bulletin, HTS update, information), plus whether an unresolved outage or delay appears in the latest messages. Data is CBP's public CSMS feed; CBP does not publish a live uptime meter. Related tools on this server, for a different need: logistics_customs_cbp_manifest when you need US import bills of lading for a company: the most recent; logistics_carnet_ata_status when you need ATA Carnet country check from the International Chamber. 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_cbp_ace_system_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Optional filter: outage, maintenance, resolved, quota, hts, information
`limit`	No	Messages to return, 1 to 25 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`messages`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`openIssues`	No
`possibleOutageNow`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive context beyond that: the data is CBP's public CSMS feed rather than a live uptime meter, the payment model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are not charged. The no-live-uptime caveat is exactly the kind of expectation-setting an agent needs before calling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the data source and payload, and every block (field list, derived outage signal, sibling routing, pricing) carries information. It is a single dense run-on sentence chain, though, so the pricing and caveat clauses are harder to scan than they should be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and payment, source and scope are all covered for what is otherwise a simple two-optional-parameter read. The only real gap is the inconsistent filter-value vocabulary between description and schema, which could lead to an invalid type argument.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does try to explain the message-type taxonomy, but its list ('outage, delay, resolved, maintenance window, quota bulletin, HTS update, information') does not match the schema's filter values ('outage, maintenance, resolved, quota, hts, information'), so it adds ambiguity rather than reliable meaning.

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?

Names a specific resource and source: ACE/ABI messages from CBP's Cargo Systems Messaging Service, and enumerates the returned fields (number, date, title, link, message type) plus the derived signal about whether an unresolved outage or delay appears. It also distinguishes itself from named siblings (manifest, ATA carnet) by stating those serve a different need.

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?

Gives explicit routing for two alternatives with their use conditions ('when you need US import bills of lading for a company', 'when you need ATA Carnet country check'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It never states a positive 'use this tool when' condition for itself, but the resource framing makes the trigger obvious, and the caveat that CBP publishes no live uptime meter sets expectations for what this tool should not be used for.

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?