Skip to main content
Glama

carbon_footprint

Compute CO2e footprint and EU-ETS carbon cost for a shipment lane, comparing ocean, air, and sea-air modes with per-leg breakdown and vessel-class intensity.

Instructions

Compute the CO2e CARBON FOOTPRINT of a shipment and the EU-ETS carbon COST for a lane — the Scope-3 (upstream transport) number importers increasingly must report, and the maritime carbon cost they now must pay on EU-touching lanes. The rate tools price the money; this prices the CARBON. Returns the WELL-TO-WAKE (WTW) kg CO2e of the move computed the GLEC Framework / ISO 14083 way — grams CO2e per TONNE-KILOMETRE × the routed distance × the cargo mass — with a per-LEG breakdown (drayage + main sea/air leg) and the well-to-tank vs tank-to-wake split that reporting frameworks ask for. Ocean intensity is taken by VESSEL CLASS (a ULCV moves a tonne-km for a fraction of a feeder's gCO2e/t-km — the economy-of-scale effect a naïve estimate misses); the engine picks the corridor's mainline class and lengthens the sea distance when a lane is Cape-of-Good-Hope diverted (more km → more CO2e). It puts the THREE modes side by side — OCEAN vs AIR vs SEA-AIR — on the same lane & cargo, surfacing that air emits roughly 10-50× the ocean footprint per tonne-km (the central ESG-vs-speed trade-off, linking to compare_modes), with sea-air as the carbon-smart middle. For lanes that touch an EU/EEA port it computes the EU-ETS maritime carbon COST: the voyage CO2 in scope (100% intra-EU, 50% for an EU↔non-EU voyage) × the year's phase-in (2024 40% → 2025 70% → 2026 100%) × the EUA market price — the surcharge carriers now pass to cargo. A lane that doesn't touch the EU (e.g. Asia→US) is correctly OUT of scope (no ETS). It also clarifies FuelEU Maritime and — honestly — that CBAM taxes the PRODUCT's embedded carbon, NOT the freight (the confusion importers keep making). Every emission factor and the EUA price are MODELED bands tagged typical/modeled (regla 7) — indicative footprinting & carbon-cost modeling, NOT an audited per-vessel carbon statement or a filed surcharge. PREMIUM: pay per call with x402 (USDC on Base) or set a prepaid key (FREIGHT_PULSE_KEY). Same UN/LOCODE port normalization as get_spot_rate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
origin_portYesOrigin port (city name, UN/LOCODE, or 'City, Country'). Same resolution as get_spot_rate. The origin COUNTRY drives EU-ETS scope.
dest_portYesDestination port (city name, UN/LOCODE, or 'City, Country'). The destination COUNTRY drives EU-ETS scope (touching the EU/EEA brings the voyage into scope).
container_typeNoContainer size '20ft'/'40ft'/'40HC'. Optional; defaults to '40ft'. Drives the modeled typical laden cargo mass when no weight is given.
ship_dateNoIntended ship date (ISO 'YYYY-MM-DD'). The YEAR drives the EU-ETS phase-in (2024 40%, 2025 70%, 2026+ 100%). Optional; defaults to today.
weight_kgNoActual cargo gross weight in kg. Strongly recommended — emissions are per tonne-km, so the real mass sharpens the footprint and the EU-ETS cost. If omitted, a modeled typical laden mass for the container is used.
volume_m3NoShipment volume in m³. Used for the AIR mode's IATA chargeable mass (max of actual and volumetric @167 kg/m³). Optional.
bandNoEmission-factor band to report: 'low', 'typical' or 'high'. Optional; default 'typical' (factors are honest bands, not a single audited number).
eua_price_eurNoOverride the EUA (EU Allowance) market price in €/tonne for the EU-ETS cost. Optional; defaults to a modeled typical (~€75) within a €55-100 band.
air_roleNoAir emission factor role: 'freighter' (default, higher intensity) or 'belly' (passenger-jet hold, lower allocation). Optional.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: results are modeled/indicative, not audited; emission factors are bands (low/typical/high); EU-ETS cost computation details (scope, phase-in, EUA price); default assumptions (mass, container type); and premium pricing. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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 verbose but efficiently packed with essential information. It front-loads the core outputs (WTW kg CO2e, EU-ETS cost, per-leg breakdown) and then elaborates on methodology, assumptions, and limitations. A minor deduction for length, but every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns (kg CO2e, per-leg breakdown, WTT/TW split, EU-ETS cost, mode comparison), explains methodology and assumptions, clarifies exclusions (CBAM), and provides usage context (premium pricing, port normalization). No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that origin/dest COUNTRY drives EU-ETS scope, ship_date YEAR drives phase-in, weight_kg is recommended for accuracy, band defines reporting range, eua_price_eur overrides modeled price, and air_role distinguishes freighter vs belly. Each parameter's role in the computation is clarified.

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 precisely states the tool computes CO2e carbon footprint and EU-ETS carbon cost for a shipment lane. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_modes and get_spot_rate by focusing on carbon metrics rather than rates or mode comparison, and uses specific terms like 'Scope-3', 'GLEC Framework / ISO 14083', and 'WELL-TO-WAKE'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly indicates when to use this tool: for ESG reporting, EU-ETS cost calculation, and mode comparison. It also clarifies what it does not cover (CBAM taxes product, not freight) and references sibling tool 'compare_modes'. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or provide alternatives beyond the one mention.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/freight-pulse'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server