Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Transit Time Lookup

shippingrates_transit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get estimated ocean transit times between two ports across all available carriers.

Use this for quick transit time comparison between ports — answers "how long does it take to ship from A to B?" Returns carrier-specific transit durations, service types, and frequencies.

For detailed routing with transhipment ports and service codes, use shippingrates_transit_schedules instead.

PAID: $0.02/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: Array of { carrier, transit_days, service_type, frequency, direct_or_transhipment }.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds payment requirements (x402, $0.02/call, 402 on non-payment) and the return array structure, which are valuable behavioral disclosures 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Description is five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main function, usage guidance, alternative tool, payment/costs, and return format. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), but the description compensates by specifying the return array fields, payment behavior, and an explicit sibling. This provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for origin, destination, and x_payment. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets estimated ocean transit times between two ports, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling shippingrates_transit_schedules by noting this is for quick comparison while the sibling handles detailed routing.

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 says 'Use this for quick transit time comparison' and directs users to shippingrates_transit_schedules for detailed routing. This provides clear when-to-use and an explicit 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