cargoshipper-mcp

by scarr7981

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are clearly disambiguated by their 'cf_' and 'docker_' prefixes, making it easy to distinguish between CloudFlare and Docker operations. However, the presence of two unrelated domains may confuse an agent about which set to use for a given task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: prefix (cf_ or docker_) followed by verb_noun (e.g., cf_create_dns_record, docker_list_containers). No style mixing or vague verbs observed.
Tool Count3/5
21 tools is on the high side for a typical single-purpose server, though each subdomain (CloudFlare and Docker) has a reasonable count. The combined set feels heavy and could be split into separate servers for better coherence.
Completeness3/5
The CloudFlare tools cover core zone and DNS operations, while Docker tools cover basic container lifecycle. However, both lack advanced features (e.g., Docker networks, CloudFlare firewall rules), and the dual-domain focus leaves potential gaps in each area.
Average 3.4/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on October 2, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it is a get operation but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or disclose any side effects. More transparency is needed.
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 short, with no wasted words. The Args section is slightly redundant but acceptable. Could be more structured.
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?
For a simple get operation with an output schema, the description is adequate but could mention what 'detailed information' includes to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, zone_id, and the description adds 'CloudFlare zone ID' which provides context beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, a more thorough description would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a specific zone. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like cf_get_zone_settings, leaving differentiation implied.
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 vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions updating. No disclosure of side effects, propagation details, or requirements (e.g., permissions), which is insufficient for a mutation 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 concise: one sentence plus a parameter list. However, the parameter list largely mirrors the schema, which could be more efficiently front-loaded.
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?
With an output schema, return values need no explanation. The description covers all parameters but misses overall context like when to update vs. create/delete, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal semantics: e.g., 'if changing' notes for optional parameters. This helps but is sparse; for 8 parameters, more detail would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a DNS record' clearly states the action and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like cf_create_dns_record and cf_delete_dns_record, though it could explicitly contrast.
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 alternatives (e.g., cf_create_dns_record for new records). The description only lists parameters, lacking usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description omits behavioral traits such as permission requirements, zone initialization states, or rate limits. The mutation intent is clear but insufficient disclosure.
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 brief (6 lines) and uses a clear 'Args:' structure. No wasted words, though could be slightly more organized.
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?
Covers basic creation purpose and parameters, but lacks usage context and behavioral details. Output schema exists (not shown), so return value explanation is forgivable. Incomplete for a 4-param creation 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'name' as domain name, 'account_id' as account ID, 'jump_start' for auto-import, and 'zone_type' with allowed values ('full' or 'partial'). Adds meaning beyond schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new CloudFlare zone', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cf_delete_zone and cf_get_zone. However, it could elaborate on what a zone represents (e.g., domain).
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 alternatives, or any prerequisites (e.g., domain verification). Lacks explicit context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Delete' without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or other behavioral traits.
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 very short and front-loaded. While concise, it could be considered under-specified for a destructive action, but it effectively communicates the core purpose.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description should explain return values, error handling, and safety considerations. It omits these, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds 'CloudFlare zone ID' for the parameter, giving context beyond the schema's title. However, it lacks details on format or how to obtain the ID.
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 'Delete a CloudFlare zone' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cf_create_zone and cf_list_zones.
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 alternatives such as cf_delete_dns_record. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states the action and parameter, no disclosure of side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two lines. No unnecessary information. Front-loaded with tool purpose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about what zone settings are, output structure, or prerequisites. Incomplete for a tool that returns settings data.
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 coverage is 0%; description repeats 'zone_id: CloudFlare zone ID'. Adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name. Does not clarify format, constraints, or examples for the single parameter.
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 'Get CloudFlare zone settings', specifying the verb (get) and resource (zone settings). It distinguishes from siblings like cf_get_zone (which gets the zone itself) and cf_update_zone_setting (update).
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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or any context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions authentication but does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing images), progress, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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?
Concise and front-loaded with purpose. Uses an args-style list which is clear, though could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). No unnecessary information.
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?
Output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be detailed. However, for a pull operation, additional context like layer download handling or authentication failure behavior would improve completeness. Adequate for a simple 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: provides an example for image, notes registry defaults to Docker Hub, and explains use_auth defaults to True. This compensates well for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Pull a Docker image', which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_list_images or docker_run_container. However, 'pull' could be further elaborated to clarify it downloads image layers.
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 alternatives like docker_run_container (which pulls if missing). No mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the update action but omits side effects, permission requirements, or error handling. The simple mutation warrants minimal disclosure but still lacks critical details.
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 short and to the point, with a clear structure: one sentence followed by argument list. No unnecessary words, though the argument list repeats schema names.
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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context on available settings, value types, and side effects. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides example values for 'setting' (e.g., 'ssl') but not for 'zone_id' or 'value'. It clarifies the parameter purpose but not valid formats or 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 tool name and description clearly indicate the action (update) and resource (zone setting). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cf_get_zone_settings (read-only) and cf_create_dns_record (different resource).
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 alternatives like cf_get_zone_settings. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided; the description only states it is a read operation but gives no details about required permissions, data volume, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words.
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?
The description is minimal but acceptable given the presence of an output schema; however, it could mention what system information is returned.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%; the baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Docker system information' clearly states the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools as it is the only one for system info.
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 alternatives; the description lacks any context about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action without any behavioral details. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose that this is a safe read operation, what side effects (none) exist, or any permission requirements. It lacks transparency beyond the bare minimum.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and earns its place without any padding. Perfect conciseness for a trivial tool.
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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description could be more informative by mentioning what the output contains (e.g., image names, tags). However, for a simple list operation, 'List Docker images' is minimally viable but lacks completeness that an agent might benefit from.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information because there are none. It does not provide any additional semantics that the schema does not already cover.
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 'List Docker images' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (Docker images), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docker_list_containers and docker_run_container by focusing specifically on images.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation or that it lists all local images without filtering. Siblings like docker_pull_image or docker_run_container have different use cases, but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates deletion is destructive but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility. There is no mention of error conditions or idempotency.
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 concise with one sentence for purpose and clear parameter mapping under 'Args:'. No wasted words, though it could be more front-loaded by putting the purpose first.
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?
For a simple delete operation, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the output schema or error conditions. While the tool is straightforward, there is room for improvement in providing complete guidance.
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%, but the description adds meaning by defining 'zone_id' as 'CloudFlare zone ID' and 'record_id' as 'DNS record ID', which the schema's titles lack. This compensates for the low coverage.
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 'Delete a DNS record', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cf_create_dns_record and cf_update_dns_record.
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 alternatives such as cf_update_dns_record or cf_list_dns_records. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'use carefully' for purge_everything, hinting at destructiveness, but fails to mention rate limits, idempotency, or effects on other Cloudflare actions. This is insufficient.
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 concise: two sentences plus a bullet list. The main action is front-loaded. The 'Args' format is clear but slightly informal; still effective.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks explanation of how each purge method works (e.g., purge_everything invalidates all cache, files/tags/hosts are selective) and does not provide enough context for an agent to choose correctly.
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%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning beyond the schema: e.g., 'files: List of specific URLs to purge,' 'tags: List of cache tags to purge,' and 'purge_everything: Purge all cache (use carefully).' This clarifies each parameter's role, though it could be more detailed.
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 starts with 'Purge CloudFlare cache', which clearly states the verb (purge) and resource (CloudFlare cache). Among sibling tools like cf_create_dns_record, cf_get_analytics, etc., none are cache-related, so it effectively distinguishes itself.
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 vs alternatives, nor does it explain when to choose purge_everything over files/tags/hosts. The only hint is 'use carefully' for purge_everything, but there are no explicit use cases or exclusions compared to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving the agent without important context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and follows a clear docstring format listing arguments, with no extraneous information.
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?
The description covers the basic parameters and purpose, but lacks mention of output format, pagination, or limits. However, the presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need for return value explanation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Filter by record type'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles.
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 'List DNS records for a zone' which is a specific verb+resource combination, differentiating it from sibling tools like cf_create_dns_record or cf_delete_dns_record.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details. It does not explain that removing a container destroys it, or that force is needed for running containers. Given no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with parameters listed after the main action. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but for a removal tool, it lacks context on consequences, failure modes, or return values. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates, but overall completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose. It clarifies that container_id can be ID or name, and force allows removal of running containers. This is sufficient but not exhaustive.
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 action (remove) and resource (Docker container). It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_stop_container which stops but does not remove.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like docker_stop_container, nor does it mention prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool creates a record and explains parameters like proxied and ttl, which imply behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the record already exists, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 structured as a clear list with an opening statement, front-loading the purpose. It is concise enough, though the parameter list could be slightly more terse. No redundant sentences.
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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values. It thoroughly explains all 7 parameters. However, it lacks context on failure modes, duplicate handling, and dependencies (e.g., zone existence), which are relevant for a creation 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?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source. It explains each parameter with meaningful details (e.g., 'TTL: Time to live (1 = Auto, 120-7200 seconds)', 'priority: Priority for MX records'), adding significant value beyond the schema's type and title.
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 explicitly states 'Create a DNS record', matching the tool name and clearly indicating a creation action. It is distinct from sibling tools like cf_update_dns_record and cf_delete_dns_record, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., zone must exist) or situations where updating or deleting is more appropriate, leaving the agent without decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond listing. It does not mention default behavior (e.g., all_containers default is True, so it includes stopped containers) or any 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal and front-loaded with the purpose. Two concise lines for parameters, no redundant information.
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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could mention default listing behavior (all vs. running), but overall adequate.
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%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: 'Include stopped containers (default: True)' and 'Optional filters {"key": "value"}'. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though filter format could be more explicit.
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 'List Docker containers' is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_get_logs, docker_list_images, etc., as listing containers is a distinct operation.
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 only outlines parameters, not when to use this tool over alternatives. No guidance on context, exclusions, or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the core action without disclosing side effects (e.g., error if container already running), permissions needed, or return value information, despite an output schema existing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. No redundant words or padding.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description is too sparse. It fails to mention typical return format, error cases, or state dependencies, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 description for the lone parameter, 'container_id: Container ID or name', adds clarity by specifying that it accepts both ID and name, which the schema lacks (schema description coverage 0%). This expands on the 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 'Start a stopped Docker container', using specific verb and resource, and implies the container must be stopped, which distinguishes it from related tools like docker_stop_container.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description implies it is for stopped containers, but does not state when not to use it or how to verify state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists parameters. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The word 'get' implies a read operation, but no explicit safety guarantees are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.
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?
The description is sufficient to understand that this tool retrieves analytics for a CloudFlare zone with time filtering. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it lacks operational context like available metrics or pagination, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: zone_id, since/until formats (ISO 8601), and continuous flag. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title alone.
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 'Get zone analytics' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like cf_get_zone and cf_get_zone_settings which serve different purposes.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the basic function, without any when-not-to-use context or pointers to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation ('get logs'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. With no annotations, the agent must infer this from the verb. It does disclose default parameter behaviors, which adds some transparency.
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 concise with a single-line purpose followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficiently uses space, though a brief note on behavior could be added without bloat.
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?
For a simple log retrieval tool, the description covers all parameters and the core operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Missing: error handling or performance notes, but generally adequate.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description documents all four parameters, explaining their purpose (e.g., 'tail' is number of lines from end, 'follow' to follow output). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.
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 retrieves logs from a Docker container, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage containers, images, or DNS records. The verb 'get' and resource 'logs' make the purpose explicit.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_list_containers or docker_system_info. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must exist) or conditions under which logs are available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions timeout for forceful killing, but does not disclose behavioral traits like what happens on success, if container already stopped, or effects on attached processes. No annotations are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args block. No wasted words; every part contributes to clarity.
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?
Adequate for a simple stop action, but lacks details on output or edge cases. Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but could mention transition to stopped state.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: container_id is 'Container ID or name' and timeout is 'seconds before forcefully killing'. This is helpful for an agent.
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 'Stop a Docker container', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docker_remove_container (which removes) and docker_start_container (which starts).
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 alternatives such as docker_remove_container or docker_kill. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists zones and describes parameters, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since it's a read operation, this is acceptable but minimal.
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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is well-structured but could be more compact. No unnecessary sentences.
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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers purpose and parameters. However, without annotations, it lacks behavioral context like idempotency or auth, but for a simple list tool, this is largely adequate.
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 0%, so the description fully explains the parameters. It provides clear semantics: per_page range (5-50), page number, name filter, and status filter with enumerated values. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 'List CloudFlare zones' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like cf_get_zone (single zone) and cf_create_zone, ensuring no ambiguity.
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?
The description lists parameters and their purposes, implying when to use this tool (to list zones with filters). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as cf_get_zone for a single zone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reveals key behaviors: defaults for detach and remove, port/volume mapping formats. However, it does not mention side effects like auto-pulling images, error handling, or what happens on success. No annotations were provided to supplement.
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?
Main sentence is front-loaded, and parameters are listed as a bulleted 'Args' block. While efficient, it is slightly verbose for a run tool. Each line is short and relevant.
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?
Input side is well-covered, but the description lacks information about output/return values despite an output schema existing. No mention of container ID, status, or error behavior. The description is incomplete for a run operation with many optional parameters.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose and expected format (e.g., 'Optional port mappings {"container_port": host_port}'). All 8 parameters are described clearly.
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 clearly states 'Run a Docker container' with specific verb and resource. It lists all configuration parameters and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like docker_list_containers or docker_remove_container.
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?
Usage is implied by the description (to run a new container), but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like docker_start_container or docker_pull_image. No when-not or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cargoshipper-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/scarr7981/cargoshipper-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/scarr7981/cargoshipper-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cargoshipper-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/scarr7981/cargoshipper-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/scarr7981/cargoshipper-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/scarr7981/cargoshipper-mcp'

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