Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Get CFS Handling Tariffs

shippingrates_cfs_tariffs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Container Freight Station (CFS) handling tariffs — charges for LCL (Less than Container Load) cargo consolidation and deconsolidation at port warehouses.

Use this for LCL shipments to estimate warehouse handling costs. Returns per-unit handling rates, minimum charges, and storage fees at the specified port. Not relevant for FCL (Full Container Load) shipments.

PAID: $0.05/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: Array of { facility, service_type, cargo_type, rate_per_unit, unit, minimum_charge, currency }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portYesUN/LOCODE port code (e.g. INMAA, INMUN)
serviceNoFilter by service type
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
cargo_typeNoFilter by cargo type

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cargo_type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by cargo type",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / country
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ISO 2-letter country code",
-  "maxLength": 2,
-  "minLength": 2,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / line
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shipping line slug",
-  "enum": [
-    "maersk",
-    "msc",
-    "cma-cgm",
-    "hapag-lloyd",
-    "one",
-    "cosco"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / port
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "UN/LOCODE port code (e.g. INMAA, INMUN)",
+  "maxLength": 10,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / service
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by service type",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "line",
-  "country"
-]New value: +[
+  "port"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: it is a paid API ($0.05 via x402) and returns a 402 with payment instructions if unpaid. It also discloses the exact return shape (array of objects with field names), which goes 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?

The description is well-structured and concise: purpose first, usage second, payment details third, return format last. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff or repetition.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage scope, exclusions, payment requirements, error condition, and return structure. Nothing critical is left unexplained.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the payment parameter ('PAID: $0.05/call via x402') but does not elaborate on service, cargo_type, or port beyond the schema. This is consistent with the benchmark's baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches Container Freight Station (CFS) handling tariffs, specifically for LCL cargo consolidation/deconsolidation at port warehouses. It distinguishes from siblings by scoping to CFS tariffs and explicitly excluding FCL shipments.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this for LCL shipments to estimate warehouse handling costs' and excludes FCL shipments. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the when/when-not guidance is explicit and sufficient.

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

All ShippingRates 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: D&D calculator/compare/countdown, inland search/haulage/compare, and congestion/news/risk are well separated. However, the transit/vessel group (transit, transit_schedules, vessel_schedule, vessel_schedule_options) and rates vs total_cost could cause some selection ambiguity, though descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the 'shippingrates_' prefix and snake_case, but naming patterns vary: some are action-oriented (shippingrates_dd_calculate, shippingrates_inland_compare), while others are noun phrases (shippingrates_surcharges, shippingrates_port, shippingrates_total_cost). This inconsistency could make it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 26 tools, the server is on the heavier side, exceeding the typical 15-tool comfort zone. However, the broad domain of shipping rates, logistics, and regulatory data justifies the number, as each tool covers a distinct aspect. Still, the volume may overwhelm agents.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is remarkably comprehensive for a shipping rates server, covering freight benchmarks, surcharges, local charges, D&D (calculate/compare/countdown), inland haulage, transit schedules, vessel schedules, congestion, risk scoring, regulatory updates, facilities, FX, and a composite total-cost calculator. No obvious gaps for common logistics cost-analysis workflows.

Resources