A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceA fully MCP-compliant, open-source maritime data service that provides real-time vessel tracking, port information, route planning, and weather/tide data for maritime applications.
14
MIT
outstations-mcp
This server is an anchorage/pilot-book MCP server: it finds, details, ranks, and lists anchorages.
find_anchorages_near(lat, lon, radius_nm=10)— anchorages within a radius, nearest first, with exposure summary.get_anchorage(name)— full record and verbatim pilot-book prose for one named anchorage.rank_anchorages(names, forecast)— ranks named anchorages by overnight comfort against a weather forecast.list_sources()— lists the pilot books ingested into the vault.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@outstations-mcplist outstations near Friday Harbor"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
club-moorage-mcp
MCP server serving yacht-club moorage records — size limits, rafting rules, booking
processes, amenities, reciprocal terms, and overnight-comfort ranking. Each record carries
a relationship:
outstation— a facility the club owns for its own members. Ships bundled with the three Royal Victoria Yacht Club (RVYC) outstations (Long Harbour, Friday Harbor, Telegraph Harbour).reciprocal— a partner club that hosts visiting RVYC members as guests, with its own visitor terms (free nights, fees, max stay, insurance minimum). Ships bundled with the whole RVYC reciprocal list — 138 clubs, worldwide, in two depths:Researched (
confidencemed/high, 45 clubs) — the BC + Washington coastal set the boat actually cruises: South Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, the Vancouver-side crossing stops, the San Juans / Anacortes / Bellingham, the Strait of Juan de Fuca / North Puget Sound. Per-club terms, fees, size limits and Vaan fit.Listed only (
confidence: low, 93 clubs) — everything else on the list: California, Hawaii, Mexico, Bermuda, the Caribbean, eastern Canada, the UK, Australia/NZ and the rest. Position, address, phone and website only, so a passage plan can ask "whose club is in this port?" — guest-moorage terms are not researched and every record says so.
Tools
list_moorage(clubs?, relationship?)— all moorage: location, coords, size limits.find_moorage_near(lat, lon, radius_nm=20, clubs?, relationship?, date?)— nearby moorage, nearest first; annotates live availability when configured.get_moorage(name)— full record + prose; for an outstation, also the club's general rules.rank_moorage(names, forecast, date?)— overnight-comfort rank for records that support anchoring/mooring; dock-only records are returned undernot_ranked. Reuses pilotbook-mcp's scoring against a weather-mcp forecast.check_availability(name, date)— live slip availability for RVYC reservable outstations; requiresRVYC_USERNAME/RVYC_PASSWORD.
The clubs filter is an optional list of club codes (e.g. ["RVYC"]); omit for all clubs.
The relationship filter is "outstation" or "reciprocal"; omit for both. The
agent/context layer decides which clubs are relevant from who is aboard. Discontinued
reciprocals (available: false) are omitted from list/find but still resolve by name.
Related MCP server: flkeys-mcp
Live outstation availability (optional)
check_availability(name, date) reports live slip availability for RVYC's two
reservable outstations (Long Harbour, Friday Harbor); find_moorage_near and
rank_moorage take an optional date to annotate results the same way. Telegraph
Harbour is first-come-first-served (booked via the marina) and reciprocal clubs have
no online scheduler, so those return a reason instead of counts.
This layer is off by default. Set RVYC_USERNAME and RVYC_PASSWORD (member
credentials) to enable it; without them the tools return static data plus a
"not configured" note. No credentials or member data are stored in this package.
Data
Records are markdown (YAML frontmatter + prose) under src/club_moorage_mcp/data/
(clubs/, outstations/, reciprocals/). Point at a different directory with
CLUB_MOORAGE_DATA_PATH. pilotbook_anchorage cross-links a record to the nearest
pilot-book anchorage; the agent calls pilotbook-mcp's get_anchorage for seabed/depth.
moorage.geojson is a generated map of every bundled record —
GitHub renders it inline (blue = outstation, green = reciprocal). Regenerate after a data
change with uv run python ingest/build_geojson.py; --check fails on drift, and
tests/test_geojson.py does the same in CI.
Reciprocal records are generated from ingest/reciprocals.yaml — edit the YAML, then
uv run python ingest/build_records.py. The three RVYC outstations are hand-authored.
The club list is the RVYC 2024 Annual; positions and contacts are RVYC's own reciprocal
map. Per-club terms were researched from secondary sources where they exist at all;
verify fees, LOA, and availability with the club before arrival.
Install
uv sync --devRun the server
uv run club-moorage-mcp
Available Tools
4 toolsfind_anchorages_nearC
Anchorages within a radius of a position, nearest first, with exposure summary.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| radius_nm | No | Search radius in nautical miles (default 10). |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions exposure summary but omits coordinate format, rate limits, or any output details. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but too brief. It front-loads the action but lacks necessary details, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify coordinate system, exposure summary details, or any constraints beyond radius.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (radius_nm has description). Description adds no extra meaning for lat/lon parameters, leaving their format and units unspecified.
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 finds anchorages within a radius of a position, orders them nearest first, and provides an exposure summary. It distinguishes from siblings: get_anchorage (specific), list_sources (sources), rank_anchorages (ranking).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not mention when a call is appropriate or when to use alternatives like get_anchorage or rank_anchorages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_anchorageB
Full record and verbatim pilot-book prose for one named anchorage.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions returning data without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the output content.
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 a single concise sentence. It effectively communicates the core functionality without extraneous words, though it could be structured to include parameter constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (1 required param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not describe the return structure or what constitutes 'full record,' which would be helpful for an agent. An output schema would mitigate this, but none is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description only implies it is the anchorage name. No format, case sensitivity, or validation details are provided, leaving the agent to guess constraints.
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 returns 'full record and verbatim pilot-book prose for one named anchorage,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (anchorage by name). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like find_anchorages_near (search) and rank_anchorages (ranking).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is clear but does not mention alternatives or context like using find_anchorages_near for searching. The agent must infer usage from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_sourcesC
The pilot books ingested into the vault.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states what is returned. It discloses nothing about behavior such as read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but is not a proper sentence with a main verb; it is a noun phrase. It is too brief and lacks structure, failing to clearly convey the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description should at least include the verb 'list.' It partially tells what the tool returns but is incomplete as a functional description.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase, 'The pilot books ingested into the vault,' which omits the action verb. The tool name implies 'list,' but the description does not explicitly state that the tool lists or retrieves these books. It is somewhat clear but lacks a verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are about anchorages, but no comparison or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rank_anchoragesA
Rank named anchorages by overnight comfort against a forecast. Fetch the forecast from weather-mcp and pass it as forecast (a list of steps with wind_from_deg, wind_kn, swell_from_deg, swell_m).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | ||
| forecast | Yes |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states it ranks by comfort against forecast. Lacks details on side effects, authentication, or assumptions (e.g., units, missing data). Insufficient disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Second sentence provides necessary parameter detail. Minimal waste, though could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides essential information for a ranking tool with no output schema and no annotations. Explains forecast format but does not mention output structure (ranking order, score format) or error conditions. Adequate but has gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%; description adds meaning by explaining that 'names' are anchorage names and 'forecast' is a list of steps with specified fields (wind_from_deg, wind_kn, swell_from_deg, swell_m). Adds significant value beyond 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?
Description states verb 'rank' and resource 'anchorages' with a clear method (against a forecast). Distinguishes from siblings: find_anchorages_near (nearby, not rank), get_anchorage (single), list_sources (list).
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 user to fetch forecast from weather-mcp and pass specific fields, implying a prerequisite. Does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
4 tool updates
v0.6.0- First observed
find_anchorages_near - First observed
get_anchorage - First observed
list_sources - First observed
rank_anchorages
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Scored across 4 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: finding anchorages near a position, retrieving details for a specific anchorage, listing data sources, and ranking anchorages by comfort. No overlap exists.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: find_anchorages_near, get_anchorage, list_sources, rank_anchorages. No deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count4/5
Four tools is slightly below average but appropriate for a focused server covering anchorage lookup and ranking. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core read operations for anchorages: find, get details, rank, and list sources. No obvious dead ends, though write operations are absent (likely by design).
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Curated gateway to snapshot-versioned Canadian public data services with source provenance.
Read-only access to live ADSBiq aircraft and network state, with community contribution metadata.
Read-only property facts, indicative availability, authorised booking links and guest-safe support.
Restaurant fire-safety & service-interval tracking (NFPA 96/17A) — read-only demo tools.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceVerified hyper-local data API for the Florida Keys. Raccoon data covering charters, marinas, restaurants, and local knowledge missing from Google Maps and TripAdvisor.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables searching SAC huts, checking availability, and preparing booking or cancellation handoffs on hut-reservation.org with a safety model for writes.1093MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query and manage campground reservations, sites, and rate plans via the Campspot Online Booking API.8MIT