port_reliability
Congestion and dwell signals for a port (UN/LOCODE) — average wait and vessels at anchor.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Port UN/LOCODE, e.g. NLRTM |
ocean-schedules
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions output data (congestion, dwell signals) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, authorization needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key terms. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but could be improved by mentioning output format or typical data ranges.
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% for the single parameter 'port' with description. The description only repeats the schema's example and does not add formatting or additional meaning.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides congestion and dwell signals for a port, specifying average wait and vessels at anchor. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'port_congestion'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like port_congestion. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of ocean shipping: storms, carrier performance, lane schedules, port conditions, and alerts. Even overlapping areas like carrier reliability and lane comparisons are clearly differentiated by scope and purpose.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use consistent snake_case naming. Most follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern, though some start with verbs (e.g., compare_lanes, find_sailings) and others with nouns (e.g., carrier_league, port_congestion). This is predictable but not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of ocean scheduling. Each tool provides meaningful functionality without redundancy, covering storms, carriers, lanes, ports, and alerts.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core information needs: storms, carrier reliability, lane schedules, port congestion, transit times, and alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking detailed vessel info or carrier-specific data beyond reliability, but the overall coverage is strong for an informational service.