MCP GSC AI Agent Carrier Class Fleet
Server Details
BPC Sustainable Carrier Agents - Low Token Zero Inference
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- greencore-solutions/gsc-fleet-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- MCP GSC AI Agent Carrier Class Fleet
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
10 toolsfind_carriersFind Carriers for a jurisdictionInspect
SM-ECO-10060 member code → the serving surface: a resident sovereign endpoint where one exists, otherwise the fleet root covering that member's region. Category and capability addressing ship with the sovereign Carrier set and will answer here as they go live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | SM-ECO-10060 member code, e.g. UK, KR, BR | |
| category | No | Optional SPARKS category (answers as the sovereign set ships) |
get_carrier_doctrineWhat a Carrier isInspect
The Carrier AI Agent class and the sell-side positioning — prefabricated, static, zero inference; buyer-side compute stays the buyer's.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
get_fleetGet one fleetInspect
Full record for one fleet: root, region, slot range, index, catalog, Card URL pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fleet | Yes | Fleet key |
get_fleet_statsFleet statisticsCInspect
Canon fleet numbers: 10,597 LIVE across nine sovereign jurisdictions, 9.5M agentic inbound signals per month, 1.5M human visits per month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or that it is read-only. The description merely lists numbers without indicating behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but is more of a data sample than a functional description. It lacks a clear statement of the tool's action and is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned numbers mean. It does not clarify terms like 'LIVE' or 'agentic inbound signals', assuming prior knowledge. Incomplete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds no parameter info but is not required to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Canon fleet numbers: 8,097 LIVE, 9.5M agentic inbound signals per month, 1.5M human visits per month' implies the tool returns aggregate fleet statistics, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. The title 'Fleet statistics' reinforces this, making the purpose clear but not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_fleet or list_fleets. The description does not differentiate it from other fleet-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_residency_receiptThe residency receiptInspect
How to verify a GSC surface's residency claim on the wire — which headers to read and what they prove.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
how_to_transactThe four GSC surfacesInspect
Which GSC surface an agent uses for data, discovery, transaction, and standards — with the endpoint for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
list_fleetsList the GSC Carrier FleetsInspect
The three live fleet roots — Global, APAC, LATAM — with regions, slot ranges, and entry points. Headline: 10,597 LIVE across nine sovereign jurisdictions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
list_jurisdictionsThe sovereign deployment mapInspect
Where GSC Carriers are resident — all nine jurisdictions, each with its serving Azure region. Residency is the checkable claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
resolve_carrierResolve a Carrier Card URLInspect
(fleet, slot) → the canonical Card URL. Validates the slot against the fleet's real range; the Card itself is the source of truth — fetch it to confirm the Carrier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | Four-digit slot number, e.g. 0001 | |
| fleet | Yes | Fleet key |
resolve_jurisdictionResolve one jurisdictionBInspect
Member code → residency status, serving endpoint, and Azure region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Member code, e.g. CH |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description hints at a read-like operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or error behavior. The output specification is present but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return format and potential errors. It only provides a high-level mapping without specifying how the output is structured or what happens with invalid codes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'code', and the description adds little beyond the schema's own description. It reinforces the input-output mapping but does not provide additional constraints or formatting details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear mapping arrow to state that the tool converts a member code into residency status, serving endpoint, and Azure region. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_jurisdictions and resolve_carrier by focusing on a single code lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, error cases, or any context for when it's appropriate to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.