Skip to main content
Glama

freightgate-mcp-server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Schedule Reliability

shippingrates_reliability
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the latest certified public schedule-reliability highlights for a carrier.

Use this for carrier selection and high-level benchmarking. Only metrics explicitly published in the source highlight are returned; unpublished carrier delay or sample-size fields remain null.

PAID: $0.02/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns the unchanged API reliability envelope with source, period, freshness, and published metric fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYesShipping line slug — maersk, msc, cmacgm (or cma-cgm), hapag-lloyd, one, cosco, zim, evergreen, yangming, hmm, arkas, oocl, pil, wanhai
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
trade_laneNoTrade lane filter — e.g. 'Asia-Europe', 'Transpacific', 'Asia-Middle East'

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / line / description
      Previous value: -"Shipping line slug — maersk, msc, cmacgm (or cma-cgm), hapag-lloyd, one, cosco, zim, evergreen, yangming, hmm, arkas, oocl, pil"New value: +"Shipping line slug — maersk, msc, cmacgm (or cma-cgm), hapag-lloyd, one, cosco, zim, evergreen, yangming, hmm, arkas, oocl, pil, wanhai"
    • changedInput schema / properties / line / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "maersk",
-  "msc",
-  "cmacgm",
-  "cma-cgm",
-  "hapag-lloyd",
-  "one",
-  "cosco",
-  "zim",
-  "evergreen",
-  "yangming",
-  "hmm",
-  "arkas",
-  "oocl",
-  "pil"
-]New value: +[
+  "maersk",
+  "msc",
+  "cmacgm",
+  "cma-cgm",
+  "hapag-lloyd",
+  "one",
+  "cosco",
+  "zim",
+  "evergreen",
+  "yangming",
+  "hmm",
+  "arkas",
+  "oocl",
+  "pil",
+  "wanhai"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / line / description
      Previous value: -"Shipping line slug — one of: maersk, msc, cma-cgm, hapag-lloyd, one, cosco"New value: +"Shipping line slug — maersk, msc, cmacgm (or cma-cgm), hapag-lloyd, one, cosco, zim, evergreen, yangming, hmm, arkas, oocl, pil"
    • changedInput schema / properties / line / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "maersk",
-  "msc",
-  "cma-cgm",
-  "hapag-lloyd",
-  "one",
-  "cosco"
-]New value: +[
+  "maersk",
+  "msc",
+  "cmacgm",
+  "cma-cgm",
+  "hapag-lloyd",
+  "one",
+  "cosco",
+  "zim",
+  "evergreen",
+  "yangming",
+  "hmm",
+  "arkas",
+  "oocl",
+  "pil"
+]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / line / description
      Previous value: -"Shipping line slug"New value: +"Shipping line slug — one of: maersk, msc, cma-cgm, hapag-lloyd, one, cosco"
    • changedInput schema / properties / trade_lane / description
      Previous value: -"Trade lane filter"New value: +"Trade lane filter — e.g. 'Asia-Europe', 'Transpacific', 'Asia-Middle East'"
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds crucial context: the PAYG payment model ($0.02/call), the 402 failure mode with payment instructions, the behavior of returning nulls for unpublished fields, and the return envelope fields. This goes well beyond what annotations provide, with no contradiction.

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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, payment, and return envelope. It is front-loaded with the verb, avoids fluff, and is highly scannable.

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 having no output schema, the description fully covers the return value ("unchanged API reliability envelope with source, period, freshness, and published metric fields"), the failure mode (402), limitations (null fields), and payment requirements. This is complete for a simple, read-only data access tool with one required parameter.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the line enum and trade_lane example. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get the latest certified public schedule-reliability highlights for a carrier." This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like shippingrates_rates or shippingrates_congestion, which target different data. The title 'Schedule Reliability' reinforces the purpose.

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 states when to use it: "Use this for carrier selection and high-level benchmarking." It also notes a limitation (only published metrics returned) and the payment requirement. However, it does not mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All freightgate-mcp-server 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. For example, shippingrates_dd_calculate vs shippingrates_dd_compare handle single-carrier vs cross-carrier D&D analysis, and shippingrates_congestion, congestion_news, and risk_score cover different aspects of port conditions and route risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'shippingrates_<specific_name>' pattern using snake_case. The suffixes are descriptive and predictable (e.g., _calculate, _compare, _search, _schedule), making it easy for agents to infer functionality from names.

Tool Count4/5

With 25 tools, the set is comprehensive but slightly on the higher side. However, each tool serves a distinct function within the shipping intelligence domain, and no tool feels redundant. The count is appropriate for the broad scope of the server.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full spectrum of shipping logistics: freight rates, surcharges, local charges, demurrage/detention, inland haulage, transit schedules, vessel schedules, port/facility info, congestion, disruption news, risk scoring, regulatory updates, currency conversion, and discovery tools (search, stats). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources