Skip to main content
Glama

ShippingRates MCP Server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Vessel Schedule Options With Cutoffs

shippingrates_vessel_schedule_options
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get carrier vessel/voyage schedule options between an origin and destination, including operational cutoff deadlines when the carrier source publishes them.

Use this for booking planning questions that need vessel details, voyage number, transshipment ports, ETA/ETD, and port/SI/VGM cutoffs. Missing cutoff fields remain null or absent; ShippingRates does not infer unpublished deadlines.

For port-call monitoring without cutoff details, use shippingrates_vessel_schedule.

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

Returns: { origin, destination, options: Array<{ carrier, vessel_name, vessel_imo, voyage_number, etd, eta, transshipment_ports, cutoffs, source_url }>, coverage }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum schedule options to return (default: 50)
originYesOrigin UN/LOCODE — e.g. CNSHA, INNSA, SGSIN
carrierNoOptional carrier filter — e.g. cmacgm, hapag, maersk
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
days_aheadNoDays to look ahead (default: 90)
destinationYesDestination UN/LOCODE — e.g. USLAX, DEHAM, AEJEA

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that cutoffs are only returned when published and never inferred, and it clearly describes the paid-call behavior (402 without payment). This adds meaningful operational context without any contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: action, use cases, alternative, payment, and return structure are all covered in a few sentences, with 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description explicitly documents the return shape (origin, destination, options, coverage). It also covers cutoff behavior, payment, and sibling differentiation, making it fully sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

All 6 parameters already have descriptive schema text (100% coverage), which establishes a baseline of 3. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond the overall origin-destination scope and the return shape.

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 'Get carrier vessel/voyage schedule options between an origin and destination...' which precisely states the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling shippingrates_vessel_schedule by explicitly focusing on cutoff deadlines.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this for booking planning questions that need vessel details, voyage number, transshipment ports, ETA/ETD, and port/SI/VGM cutoffs.' It also names an alternative tool for port-call monitoring without cutoffs and mentions the payment prerequisite.

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