Skip to main content
Glama

Aether-X Port Delay Intelligence

by io.github.belegante-byte
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

evaluate_end_to_end_supply_chain_risk

[INFERENCE TOOL] Supply Chain Disruption Early Warning (SCDEW, 0-100 composite warning score).

CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR LLM: Use this tool for MACRO-level risk analysis when a user asks about the overall safety or end-to-end delay risk of a full trade corridor (e.g., Brazil to China).

SCDEW = (PCI × 0.3) + (CDR × 0.3) + (VQPM × 0.2) + (IRDI × 0.2).

Args:
    origin_port: Export port UN/LOCODE e.g. "BRPNG", "BRSSZ".
    destination_port: Import port UN/LOCODE e.g. "CNTAO", "NLRTM".
    chokepoint_id: Intermediary chokepoint UN/LOCODE e.g. "HORMUZ", "EGSUZ".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
origin_portNoBRPNG
chokepoint_idNoHORMUZ
destination_portNoCNTAO

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral content: the composite formula, the weightings, and the 0-100 warning-score range. It stops short of stating permissions, cost/rate behavior, or how to interpret a given score (i.e., what value counts as an alarm), which matters for a risk-warning tool.

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?

The scoring definition and trigger condition are front-loaded, and the args list adds meaning the schema lacks. It is somewhat over-formatted ('[INFERENCE TOOL]', 'CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR LLM') and the formula plus prose is mildly redundant, but nothing is wasted enough to penalize heavily.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the triggering scenario, the parameter semantics, and the metric's construction. The one real gap is interpretation guidance for the returned score, but the output schema can carry return structure, so this is close to complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the three parameters gets a role (export port, import port, intermediary chokepoint), a format (UN/LOCODE), and concrete examples (BRPNG, CNTAO, HORMUZ). Only the chokepoint's optionality/multiplicity is left unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific composite metric (SCDEW, 0-100) and states the analysis scope: MACRO-level, end-to-end risk of a full trade corridor. That is a clear verb+resource framing. Differentiation from close siblings like evaluate_corridor_risk and evaluate_scdew_warning is only implied by the word 'end-to-end', so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives one triggering condition ('use this tool ... when a user asks about the overall safety or end-to-end delay risk of a full trade corridor') with an example corridor. However, with siblings such as evaluate_corridor_risk and evaluate_scdew_warning in the same namespace, the absence of any when-not or alternative-naming leaves the agent guessing which corridor-level tool to pick.

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

All Aether-X Port Delay Intelligence toolsInspect
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