Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Route Risk Assessment

shippingrates_risk_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a deterministic route-risk score (0-100) from current certified port-congestion measurements and explicit official disruption advisories.

Unknown inputs contribute zero points. A route is scored only when at least one current, source-published signal applies; unsupported routes return no result instead of an estimated score. Chokepoint impacts use an immutable, certified UN/LOCODE mapping for Hormuz, Suez, Bab el-Mandeb, Malacca, and Panama. For exact measurements, use shippingrates_congestion. For advisory detail, use shippingrates_congestion_news.

PAID: $0.10/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns the unchanged API result shape: { origin_risk, dest_risk, route_risk_score, active_alerts[], chokepoints_affected[] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originYesOrigin port UN/LOCODE — e.g. INNSA (Nhava Sheva), CNSHA (Shanghai), SGSIN (Singapore)
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
destinationYesDestination port UN/LOCODE — e.g. AEJEA (Jebel Ali), NLRTM (Rotterdam), USNYC (New York)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / destination / description
      Previous value: -"Destination port UN/LOCODE"New value: +"Destination port UN/LOCODE — e.g. AEJEA (Jebel Ali), NLRTM (Rotterdam), USNYC (New York)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / origin / description
      Previous value: -"Origin port UN/LOCODE"New value: +"Origin port UN/LOCODE — e.g. INNSA (Nhava Sheva), CNSHA (Shanghai), SGSIN (Singapore)"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational details: unknown inputs contribute zero points, scoring only occurs when a current signal applies, immutable UN/LOCODE chokepoint mapping, payment flow with 402 response, and the exact API result shape. This goes well 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place: purpose, scoring logic, chokepoint mapping, alternatives, payment, and return shape. At roughly 100 words it is efficient, but the density requires careful reading, so not quite a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object shape and includes all critical behavior: scoring conditions, unsupported-route handling, payment flow, and related tools. There are no gaps for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions and examples for origin, destination, and x_payment. The description adds no per-parameter details beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the UN/LOCODE context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('deterministic route-risk score (0-100)'), and clearly scopes the inputs (certified port-congestion measurements, official disruption advisories). It also explicitly names sibling tools for measurements and advisories, differentiating itself from alternatives.

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?

It explicitly directs users to shippingrates_congestion for exact measurements and shippingrates_congestion_news for advisory detail, establishing when to choose alternatives. It also clarifies behavior for unsupported routes (no result instead of estimate) and the payment requirement, providing clear usage context.

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