Skip to main content
Glama

carrier_recommendation

Recommends a carrier or alliance for a shipping lane based on your priority for reliability, frequency, or cost, using updated 2025-26 alliance data.

Instructions

Recommend WHICH CARRIER or ALLIANCE to sail with on a lane — the shipper's third decision after 'when to book' and 'which mode'. Carriers and their alliances differ enormously by corridor in coverage, schedule reliability and network breadth, so this ranks the ones that actually serve YOUR corridor and recommends 2-3 with the reasoning. Models the 2025-26 alliance realignment (NOT the pre-2025 map): GEMINI COOPERATION (Maersk + Hapag-Lloyd, live Feb 2025, a hub-and-spoke model explicitly targeting >90% on-time), OCEAN ALLIANCE (CMA CGM + COSCO + Evergreen + OOCL — the broadest direct-call network & highest frequency), PREMIER ALLIANCE (ONE + HMM + Yang Ming, the former THE Alliance minus Hapag, strong transpacific), and MSC operating standalone (the world's largest fleet, vast breadth, selective slot deals) — plus niche independents (ZIM's Asia→US-East express, Wan Hai intra-Asia). For each option it returns the EXPECTED ON-TIME PERFORMANCE on this lane (the corridor's market OTP refined by the carrier's own reliability band and how much it governs the string — so Gemini surfaces ~90% vs ~55% market average on Asia-Europe), the estimated SAILING FREQUENCY (sailings/week) and network breadth, a cost-positioning read, an overall fit SCORE, and the trade-off. The ranking FLIPS with your PRIORITY: 'reliability' floats Gemini up; 'frequency' or 'cost' floats Ocean Alliance / MSC up; a carrier with no network on the corridor is NOT recommended there. It also REFINES the lane OTP to the top pick so you can feed it into your p90 lead-time buffer. Every figure is a MODELED INDICATIVE BAND (capacity shares ~Alphaliner picture, reliability ~Sea-Intelligence rankings, corridor strengths) — NOT a carrier quote, a filed tariff or a weekly KPI (regla 7). 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.
dest_portYesDestination port (city name, UN/LOCODE, or 'City, Country').
priorityNoWhat the shipper optimizes for: 'reliability' (on-time, favours Gemini), 'frequency' (sailings/week, favours Ocean/MSC), 'cost' (cheapest-leaning), or 'balanced' (default). Synonyms accepted.
container_typeNoContainer size '20ft'/'40ft'/'40HC' (informational for the lane label). Optional; defaults to '40ft'.
ship_dateNoIntended ship date (ISO 'YYYY-MM-DD'). Sets the corridor's market-baseline OTP (Cape diversion + seasonal blank-sailing pressure) the ranking is refined from. Optional; defaults to today.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that figures are modeled indicative bands, not quotes or tariffs, explains the alliance realignment and how priority affects ranking, and notes that results refine lane OTP for the top pick. All behavioral traits are transparent.

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 long but well-organized, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering nuances of alliance models and priority logic. Could be more concise, but the detail is justified by complexity.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, the description explains parameter semantics, result computation, and limitations. It lacks explicit return format but is otherwise thorough for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning: explains port normalization, priority synonyms, container_type as informational, and ship_date's role. It goes beyond the schema to clarify usage.

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 clearly states the tool recommends which carrier or alliance to sail with on a lane, positioning it as a decision aid after booking time and mode. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on carrier selection rather than rates or routes.

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?

It explains when to use (third decision in booking process) and how priority flips ranking, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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