Skip to main content
Glama
IBM

Chuk MCP Maritime Archives

by IBM

maritime_assess_position

Evaluate historical position quality and uncertainty by analyzing navigation era, source type, and date. Returns quality score, uncertainty radius, and drift modeling recommendations.

Instructions

Assess the quality and uncertainty of a historical position.

Evaluates a position based on the navigation technology available at the time, the source quality, and known factors. Returns a quality score, uncertainty radius, and recommendations for drift modelling and search planning.

Provide either a voyage_id, wreck_id, or explicit lat/lon coordinates. The assessment considers the era of navigation technology (cross-staff, backstaff, octant, chronometer) and the source description.

Args: voyage_id: Voyage identifier to assess its incident position wreck_id: Wreck identifier to assess its recorded position latitude: Explicit latitude in decimal degrees (WGS84) longitude: Explicit longitude in decimal degrees (WGS84) source_description: Description of position source for quality scoring. Keywords that improve scoring: "GPS", "surveyed", "multiple sources", "triangulated". Keywords that lower scoring: "dead reckoning", "approximate", "regional" date: Date for navigation era lookup (YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD), used when no voyage_id or wreck_id is provided output_mode: Response format - "json" (default) or "text"

Returns: JSON or text with position quality assessment

Tips for LLMs: - Provide voyage_id or wreck_id to automatically look up the position and date from the archive - The quality_score ranges from 0 (unknown) to 1 (precise GPS) - uncertainty_radius_km defines the search area envelope - The recommendations field provides actionable guidance for drift modelling and search planning - For modern surveyed wrecks, include "GPS" or "surveyed" in source_description to get a precise assessment - For historical positions from ship logs, include "dead reckoning" to reflect the navigational limitations - Navigation accuracy improved over time: 1595-1650 (~30km), 1650-1700 (~25km), 1700-1760 (~20km), 1760-1795 (~10km)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
voyage_idNo
wreck_idNo
latitudeNo
longitudeNo
source_descriptionNo
dateNo
output_modeNojson
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately describes the outputs (quality score, uncertainty radius, recommendations) and mentions navigation era lookup. However, it does not clarify behavior with conflicting inputs (e.g., both voyage_id and lat/lon) or error handling, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description is well-structured with a one-line summary, explanatory paragraph, Args section, Returns, and Tips. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly verbose, it remains organized and easy to scan.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers key aspects: inputs, outputs, navigation era details, and actionable tips. It misses some edge cases (e.g., param precedence) but is largely complete for practical use.

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 seven parameters are explained in detail despite 0% schema description coverage. Description includes units (decimal degrees), format (YYYY-MM-DD), default (output_mode), and tips for source_description keywords. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 assesses the quality and uncertainty of a historical position, specifying inputs like voyage_id, wreck_id, or coordinates, and outputs like quality score and uncertainty radius. It distinguishes from siblings like maritime_estimate_position by focusing on assessment rather than estimation.

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?

Description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, mentioning options to provide voyage_id, wreck_id, or explicit lat/lon. It also offers tips for improving scoring via source_description keywords. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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/IBM/chuk-mcp-maritime-archives'

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