Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

toll402 – EU & Nordic Data (x402)

by io.toll402
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

maritime_port_calls

Port calls at Finnish ports only (Portnet via Fintraffic Digitraffic): expected, arrived and departed ships with ETA/ETD/ATA/ATD, berth, vessel name/IMO/MMSI/flag/type, previous and next port. Filter by port UN/LOCODE (e.g. FIHEL), vessel, time window and status. Up to 15 port calls per call. Provided by Atlas Data (third-party seller); CC BY 4.0; cached up to 15 min. Price 0.02 USD per call via x402.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "maritime_port_calls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoETA to: date, ISO time, tomorrow or relative (+7 days); default +7 days
imoNoComma-separated 7-digit IMO numbers
fromNoETA from: date, ISO time, now/today or relative (-1 day, -12 hours); default -1 day
mmsiNoComma-separated 9-digit MMSI numbers, up to 20
portsNoComma-separated Finnish UN/LOCODEs, up to 10 (FIHEL, FIKTK, FIHMN, FITKU, FIRAU, FIOUL...); empty = all
statusNoComma-separated subset of expected, arrived, departed
maxItemsNoMax port calls (default 10, clamped to 15)
vesselNameNoVessel name contains

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that results are cached up to 15 min (staleness), that data is third-party via Atlas Data with CC BY 4.0 licensing, and critically that each call costs 0.02 USD via x402. That cost signal is behaviorally important and absent from any structured field. It stops short of stating whether the operation is strictly read-only or what happens on payment failure.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads scope and content before the operational metadata (source, license, cache, price). Every clause carries information, though the vendor/pricing tail could be trimmed if the surrounding tool listing already surfaces cost metadata.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 optional parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description does what it must: enumerates returned fields (ETA/ETD/ATA/ATD, berth, vessel identity, previous/next port), states the row cap, and covers freshness and cost. The only residual gap is not describing error or truncation behavior when the 15-row clamp is hit.

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%, so every parameter already has its format, defaults and clamping documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the filter categories and adds a UN/LOCODE example (FIHEL) plus the 15-item cap, which is marginal value over structured data. 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?

Names the specific resource (port calls), constrains the geography explicitly ('Finnish ports only'), identifies the upstream source (Portnet via Fintraffic Digitraffic), and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from the vessel-registry-style sibling maritime_vessels without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tells the agent what can be filtered by (port UN/LOCODE, vessel, time window, status) and that results are capped at 15, which implies the intended query pattern. However, it never states when to choose this over maritime_vessels or what to do when the cap truncates results, so usage is implied rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All toll402 – EU & Nordic Data (x402) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources