Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Compare D&D Across Shipping Lines

shippingrates_dd_compare
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare demurrage and detention costs across ALL available carriers for the same country, container type, and detention days.

Use this for freight procurement and carrier selection — it answers "which carrier has the cheapest D&D in this country?" Returns a side-by-side comparison with each carrier's free days, slab rates, and total cost sorted cheapest first.

For a single carrier's detailed D&D breakdown, use shippingrates_dd_calculate instead.

PAID: $0.25/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: Array of { line, free_days, total_cost, currency, slabs } for each available carrier, sorted by total_cost ascending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysYesNumber of detention days
countryYesISO 2-letter country code
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
container_typeYesISO 6346 container type — 20GP, 40GP, 40HC, 20RF, 40RF, 20OT, 40OT, 45HC, 40FR, 20FR, 40DG, 20DG, 45RF, 45OT, 45DG, 40TK, 20TK, 45GP, 45TK, 40NOR

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / container_type / description
      Previous value: -"ISO 6346 container type — 20DV, 40DV, 40HC, 20RF, 40RF, 20OT, 40OT, 20FR, 40FR"New value: +"ISO 6346 container type — 20GP, 40GP, 40HC, 20RF, 40RF, 20OT, 40OT, 45HC, 40FR, 20FR, 40DG, 20DG, 45RF, 45OT, 45DG, 40TK, 20TK, 45GP, 45TK, 40NOR"
    • changedInput schema / properties / container_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "20DV",
-  "40DV",
-  "40HC",
-  "20RF",
-  "40RF",
-  "20OT",
-  "40OT",
-  "20FR",
-  "40FR"
-]New value: +[
+  "20GP",
+  "40GP",
+  "40HC",
+  "20RF",
+  "40RF",
+  "20OT",
+  "40OT",
+  "45HC",
+  "40FR",
+  "20FR",
+  "40DG",
+  "20DG",
+  "45RF",
+  "45OT",
+  "45DG",
+  "40TK",
+  "20TK",
+  "45GP",
+  "45TK",
+  "40NOR"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / container_type / description
      Previous value: -"Container type code"New value: +"ISO 6346 container type — 20DV, 40DV, 40HC, 20RF, 40RF, 20OT, 40OT, 20FR, 40FR"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the paid x402 requirement ($0.25/call), the 402 response without payment, and the sorted ascending return format. This adds critical operational behavior not visible from structured data alone.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides usage guidance, alternative tool, payment policy, and return format in four efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return structure (array of line, free_days, total_cost, currency, slabs) and sorting order. It also covers payment failure behavior, making the tool fully actionable for an agent.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema already cover country, days, container_type, and x_payment. The description reinforces the three core comparison dimensions (country, container type, detention days) but adds no new parameter-specific meaning 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 demurrage and detention costs across all available carriers for a given country, container type, and detention days. It distinguishes itself from the sibling shippingrates_dd_calculate by noting it is for multi-carrier comparison, not single-carrier breakdowns.

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 recommends use for freight procurement and carrier selection, and instructs to use shippingrates_dd_calculate for single-carrier details. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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