Skip to main content
Glama

Vessel Tracking

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ais Coverage Check

ais_coverage_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Does live AIS tracking actually work at this location? Listens at a point and reports whether any community receiver covers it, so you can tell the difference between "no ships here" and "no receivers here" before trusting a zero. Use this whenever a vessel search comes back empty, and always before treating an empty result as evidence that shipping has stopped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_apiKeyNoaisstream.io API key (free at aisstream.io)
latitudeYesLatitude to test
longitudeYesLongitude to test
radius_kmNoRadius to test around the point in km (default 150)
window_secondsNoHow long to listen, 3-25 seconds (default 15)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true,openWorldHint=true,idempotentHint=true,destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it 'listens' for a time window and reports whether a receiver covers the point, clarifying how to interpret false negatives. Does not contradict 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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with a question and a clear functional statement. The second sentence provides direct usage guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage scenario, and interpretation of results. Without an output schema, it conveys the result type ('reports whether any community receiver covers it') but leaves slight ambiguity about the exact return format. Overall very complete for a simple check tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter syntax but implicitly references latitude/longitude and listening time through 'at this location' and 'Listens.' Schema already explains each parameter's purpose.

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's function: 'Listens at a point and reports whether any community receiver covers it.' It uses a specific verb ('listens') and resource ('receiver coverage'), and distinguishes itself from sibling ship-tracking tools by focusing on receiver presence rather than ship positions.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly directs when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever a vessel search comes back empty, and always before treating an empty result as evidence that shipping has stopped.' This provides clear context and helps differentiate it from alternatives.

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

All Vessel Tracking 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have significantly overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx family, deep_research, and validate_claim, plus a dense cluster of polymarket_* tools and two AI-visibility checkers. The ship-related tools are distinct, but an agent would struggle to choose among the many broadly similar query/research tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they follow no consistent convention: generic one-word verbs like remember and forget sit alongside branded names like ask_pipeworx, noun-style names like entity_profile, and prefix families like polymarket_*. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the well-scoped range, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server name 'Vessel Tracking'. The live-ship tools are a tiny minority buried inside a broad general-purpose data, research, and prediction-market platform, making the overall set feel bloated and misaligned with its stated identity.

Completeness1/5

As a vessel-tracking server, the surface is severely incomplete: only ais_coverage_check, live_ship_position, and live_ships_in_area relate to shipping, with no vessel lookup by name/IMO, no historical positions, no voyage data, and no port-call information. The actual tool set is rich as a general data platform, but that is not what the server name promises.

Resources