Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates 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 Only metrics explicitly published in the source highlight are returned; unpublished carrier delay or sample-size fields remain null.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?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses that unpublished metrics remain null ('unpublished carrier delay or sample-size fields remain null'), the payment requirement and 402 error behavior ('PAID: $0.02/call via x402... Without payment, returns 402'), and the return envelope ('Returns the unchanged API reliability envelope with source, period, freshness, and published metric fields'). These traits are not present in the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, making the tool's behavior highly transparent.

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 context, payment terms, and return envelope. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy. The structure is efficient and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, 3 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the data source, null-behavior, payment requirement, error case, and return fields. Combined with full schema documentation and rich annotations, the description leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that 'line' identifies the carrier. As the schema carries the parameter meaning, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 siblings like shippingrates_congestion or shippingrates_stats by focusing on schedule reliability. The resource (carrier) and action (get highlights) are unambiguous.

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 states 'Use this for carrier selection and high-level benchmarking,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer a different shippingrates tool. This is clear usage context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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