Skip to main content
Glama

record_performance

Record shipment actuals—transit days, on-time, damage, discrepancies—to build a private carrier or supplier scorecard with running KPIs.

Instructions

Log a shipment's REAL outcome into your private supplier/carrier/lane SCORECARD — the tool that makes freight-pulse RECURRING (you feed it, it accumulates a history no single source hands you). Give the SUBJECT (a carrier like 'Maersk', a supplier, or a lane) and the outcome — promised vs actual transit days, on-time, damage, documentary discrepancy, rollover — and it appends the event to your log, PERSISTED SERVER-SIDE per your key, then returns the subject's running KPIs (OTP %, reliability score, damage/discrepancy/roll rates). Pair with get_scorecard to rank and trend your network over time. Links to iter8 (structural carrier intel) — this is the EMPIRICAL counterpart. Honest (regla 7): it's YOUR own log — KPIs reflect only what you record, small samples flagged. PREMIUM: pay per call with x402 (USDC on Base) or a prepaid key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectYesCarrier / supplier / lane name to record against. REQUIRED.
subject_typeNo'carrier' (default), 'supplier' or 'lane'.
laneNoLane label for context (e.g. 'Shanghai → Los Angeles'). Optional.
promised_daysNoPromised transit/delivery in days.
actual_daysNoActual transit/delivery in days.
on_timeNoExplicit on-time flag (else derived from promised+actual).
damagedNoWere goods damaged?
discrepancyNoWas there a documentary discrepancy?
rolledNoWas the container rolled / shut out?
noteNoFree-text note. Optional.
Behavior5/5

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses that data is persisted server-side, KPIs reflect only user-recorded data with small samples flagged, and requires payment (PREMIUM). This is comprehensive for a logging tool.

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 somewhat verbose but well-structured: core purpose first, then details, pairing with sibling, honesty note, and payment info. Could be more concise but all content is relevant.

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 the complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter usage, behavioral context, and return values (KPIs). Does not mention error handling or rate limits, but provides enough for correct invocation.

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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds meaning by grouping them (e.g., outcome includes promised vs actual days, on-time, damage). It explains how parameters feed into KPI calculation, beyond what the schema provides.

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 it logs shipment outcomes into a private scorecard and returns running KPIs. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_scorecard by noting it is the empirical counterpart for recording data.

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?

Provides clear usage instructions: give subject and outcome, and pair with get_scorecard for ranking. Mentions payment model but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with other siblings beyond get_scorecard.

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