Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Published Total-Cost Estimate

shippingrates_total_cost
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate a published multi-component shipping-cost estimate from certified dependencies: freight benchmark observations when available, surcharges, origin/destination local charges, requested demurrage/detention exposure, FX, and transit context.

The result can be partial. A market index is not a carrier quote, and a missing component is counted as zero only when the response explicitly reports the gap. Always inspect coverage, data_gaps, total_is_partial, warning, and each component's verified flag before quoting the result. For individual components, use shippingrates_rates, shippingrates_surcharges, shippingrates_local_charges, and shippingrates_dd_calculate.

PAID: $0.15/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: { components: { freight: { amount, currency, basis, verified }, origin_local_charges / destination_local_charges: { port, items: [{ charge, amount, currency, charge_type ('mandatory'|'additional'), charge_type_reason? }], total, mandatory_total, additional_total, currency: 'INR', verified }, surcharges: { items, total, verified }, detention_demurrage? }, coverage, data_gaps?, transit_days, total_estimated_cost_usd, total_estimated_cost_inr, totals_basis: 'mandatory_only', total_additional_cost_usd/inr, total_all_inclusive_cost_usd/inr }.

IMPORTANT: the headline total_estimated_cost_* sums MANDATORY charges only (freight, lane surcharges, mandatory local charges, requested D&D). Conditional/if-applicable fees (amendments, penalties, cargo-type surcharges) are excluded from the headline — they are itemized with charge_type='additional' and summed in total_additional_cost_*; total_all_inclusive_cost_* is the sum of both.

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
originYesOrigin port UN/LOCODE — e.g. INNSA (Nhava Sheva), CNSHA (Shanghai), SGSIN (Singapore)
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
destinationYesDestination port or inland location
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
detention_daysNoExpected detention days (default: 0)

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. Changed4 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"
+]
    • 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. Changed3 schema fields 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"
    • 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 / origin / description
      Previous value: -"Origin port UN/LOCODE"New value: +"Origin port UN/LOCODE — e.g. INNSA (Nhava Sheva), CNSHA (Shanghai), SGSIN (Singapore)"
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds critical behavioral nuance: the result can be partial, missing components are counted as zero only when reported, and the headline total is mandatory-only. It also explains the mandatory vs. additional cost breakdown, which is not visible in 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 lengthy but every sentence earns its place: main action, caveats, alternatives, payment info, return shape, and a crucial clarification about mandatory vs. additional charges. It is well-organized with clear sections and front-loaded key information.

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 complexity and lack of an output schema, the description fully compensates by providing a detailed return object shape, explaining the partial-result behavior, and distinguishing between mandatory and additional costs. It also states the payment requirement and 402 fallback, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but useful connection: it clarifies that detention_days corresponds to 'requested demurrage/detention exposure' and that the result integrates all parameters into a multi-component estimate. This slightly exceeds the schema-only baseline.

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: 'Calculate a published multi-component shipping-cost estimate from certified dependencies', and enumerates the components (freight, surcharges, local charges, D&D, FX, transit). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for individual components.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating 'For individual components, use shippingrates_rates, ...' and warns about partial results and the need to inspect coverage flags. It also discloses payment requirements and 402 behavior, which helps the agent decide when to call this tool.

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