SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Ship particulars by IMO number: name, type, flag, MMSI

logistics_imo_vessel_dossier

Read-only

Ship particulars by IMO number: name, type, flag, MMSI, call sign, year built, gross tonnage, length and beam, current draught and navigation status from VesselFinder's public page, plus deadweight, builder, engine, owner, manager and class society (when listed) from BalticShipping's public vessel register, with that record's last update date. Owner and class data can be years old. Related tools on this server, for a different need: logistics_sanctioned_vessel_check when you need to search the US OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list; logistics_vessel_tracker when you need live AIS position, speed, heading and voyage status for one. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "imo": "<imo>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_imo_vessel_dossier"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`imo`	Yes	7-digit IMO ship number, e.g. 9321483

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context the agent could not otherwise know: the two upstream sources (VesselFinder public page, BalticShipping public vessel register), an explicit staleness warning ('Owner and class data can be years old'), and the payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged). Cost and data-freshness disclosure are exactly the traits that matter for an agent deciding whether to spend a call.

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 resource and full field inventory, followed by the freshness caveat, sibling routing, and pricing — a sensible ordering. The field enumeration is long but each item carries information about coverage; no sentence is pure filler. Slightly dense as one run-on clause chain.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what data, from where, how fresh, what it costs, and which sibling to use instead. Return-value details are legitimately left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'imo' parameter is already documented with type and a 7-digit example. The description only repeats 'by IMO number' and adds no format, validation, or lookup-failure semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ship particulars by IMO number') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, type, flag, MMSI, call sign, year built, tonnage, dimensions, draught, nav status, plus deadweight/builder/owner/class from a second source). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like logistics_sanctioned_vessel_check and logistics_vessel_tracker without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for two adjacent needs: use logistics_sanctioned_vessel_check for OFAC SDN screening and logistics_vessel_tracker for live AIS position/speed/heading/voyage status. The implicit selection rule (use this one for static registry particulars) is easy to infer. It stops short of addressing other plausible siblings such as psc_inspection_records or dark_fleet_ais_gap.

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?