Skip to main content
Glama

Imf Portwatch

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Chokepoint Compare

chokepoint_compare
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare chokepoint traffic status across 2 to 6 maritime chokepoints side by side and rank them by how far each one has deviated from its own trailing baseline, so an agent can spot which strait or canal is the anomalous one. Answers "which maritime chokepoint is disrupted right now", "Suez Canal transit volume vs Bab el-Mandeb", "compare Panama Canal ship counts to Hormuz", "tanker traffic anomaly across chokepoints". For each chokepoint returns the latest settled day and its total, the baseline mean over the window, the delta, the percent deviation, the direction (above, below, normal), and the per-vessel-type percent deviation; results are sorted with the largest absolute deviation first. Reports data_lag_days and a freshness_note for the whole comparison. Source is IMF PortWatch daily AIS-derived transit counts, published with a multi-day lag, so every "latest" figure is the most recent settled day rather than a live count. Names are matched forgivingly ("Hormuz", "Strait of Hormuz", "Suez", "Panama", "Bab el-Mandeb", "Malacca", "Taiwan", "Bosphorus", "Gibraltar", "Dover") or accept a portid. Examples: chokepoint_compare({chokepoints: ["Hormuz", "Suez", "Bab el-Mandeb"]}); chokepoint_compare({chokepoints: ["Suez", "Cape of Good Hope"], days: 90}); chokepoint_compare({chokepoints: ["Panama", "Suez", "Malacca", "Hormuz"], days: 14}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLength of the trailing baseline window in days for every chokepoint (default 30, min 7, max 364).
chokepointsYesTwo to six chokepoint names, aliases, or portids — e.g. ["Hormuz", "Suez", "Bab el-Mandeb"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "chokepoints": [
+      "Hormuz",
+      "Suez",
+      "Bab el-Mandeb"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "chokepoints": [
+      "Panama",
+      "Suez",
+      "Malacca",
+      "Hormuz"
+    ],
+    "days": 14
+  }
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds data source (IMF PortWatch), multi-day lag, and freshness reporting, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is detailed yet concise, front-loads purpose, then explains returns, constraints, and examples. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully describes return fields, sorting, and constraints. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description expands with acceptable name aliases and examples, adding value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool compares 2-6 chokepoints side by side and ranks by deviation from baseline. It answers specific questions and distinguishes from siblings like chokepoint_daily_traffic.

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?

The description provides examples and indicates when to use (spot anomalous chokepoint). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

All Imf Portwatch toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar, and there is some overlap between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, the majority are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with only minor deviations (e.g., 'chokepoints_list' vs 'chokepoint_daily_traffic'). The naming convention is predictable and clear.

Tool Count2/5

At 37 tools, the surface is overly large for a focused server. Many tools are meta-tools that could have been consolidated, and the count exceeds the recommended range (25+), making it feel heavy and unwieldy.

Completeness5/5

The server covers maritime chokepoints comprehensively (list, status, daily, compare, disruptions), and the Pipeworx-based tools provide broad coverage across financial, drug, prediction market, and general query domains. There are no obvious gaps for the stated scope.

Resources