Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Search Inland Transport Routes

shippingrates_inland_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for available inland transport routes (road/rail haulage) from port to inland destinations for a specific carrier.

Use this to discover what haulage routes a carrier offers in a country. For example, search "ahmedabad" to find routes from Nhava Sheva to Ahmedabad via Maersk. Returns route options with ICD/CFS codes and available container types.

For actual haulage rate quotes, use shippingrates_inland_haulage. For cross-carrier rate comparison, use shippingrates_inland_compare.

PAID: $0.03/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: Array of { origin, destination, mode, container_types, icd_code } matching the search criteria.

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
countryYesISO 2-letter country code
keywordNoSearch term — city name, region, or route
icd_codeNoDestination ICD UN/LOCODE filter
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
delivery_modeNoDelivery mode filter (default: ramp)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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
    • addedInput schema / properties / delivery_mode
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Delivery mode filter (default: ramp)",
+  "enum": [
+    "ramp",
+    "door"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / icd_code
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Destination ICD UN/LOCODE filter",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field 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"
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds meaningful context: the payment requirement (PAID: $0.03/call, 402 without payment), the return format (array of objects with specific fields), and the search behavior. This goes beyond what annotations offer and no contradiction exists.

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 concise and well-structured: opening with the main purpose, then usage example, alternatives, payment info, and return format. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the key action.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, alternatives, payment behavior, and return structure. Annotations and schema cover the safety profile and parameter details, leaving no significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example keyword search ('ahmedabad') and mentions ICD/CFS in the context of return values, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('inland transport routes'), and differentiates it from sibling tools by naming alternatives for haulage rates and cross-carrier comparison. The example search 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to discover what haulage routes a carrier offers in a country') and gives concrete alternatives ('For actual haulage rate quotes, use shippingrates_inland_haulage. For cross-carrier rate comparison, use shippingrates_inland_compare'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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