Skip to main content
Glama

Imf Portwatch

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Port Search

port_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the PortWatch port database (1,500+ ports globally) by name, country, or ISO3. Returns matching ports with country, continent, latitude/longitude, annual vessel counts by cargo type, top industries, and the port's share of the country's maritime imports/exports. Useful for identifying which ports would be affected by a country-level disruption, or finding the LOCODE / portid for a named port.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 20, max 100)
queryNoFree-text portname match (e.g. "Rotterdam", "Houston", "Singapore")
countryNoCountry filter — full name ("Netherlands") or ISO3 ("NLD")

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: +[
+  {
+    "query": "Rotterdam"
+  },
+  {
+    "country": "Singapore",
+    "limit": 10,
+    "query": "Singapore"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it searches a global database of 1,500+ ports and returns specific data fields, which is consistent and provides useful behavioral 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?

Two sentences: first defines action and scope, second lists output and use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the simple read-only search tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output fields, and use cases. Could mention pagination or sorting, but the limit param and explicit output list suffice.

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% with clear param descriptions. The description mentions searching 'by name, country, or ISO3' which aligns with the query and country params, but adds no new param-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches the PortWatch port database by name, country, or ISO3, and lists specific return fields. This differentiates it from sibling tools like entity_profile or chokepoint tools, which deal with different entities.

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 explicitly mentions use cases: identifying ports affected by country-level disruptions or finding LOCODE/portid. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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