vessel-traffic-mcp

Document Vessel Lookup

document_vessel_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract vessel names, IMO, MMSI, voyage, ports, and container numbers from B/L-style text. Returns ranked candidate matches for quick identification.

Instructions

Extract vessel signals (name, IMO/MMSI/callsign, voyage, ports, container numbers, dates) from B/L-style text and return ranked candidates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "document_vessel_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`hint`	No
`limit`	No
`provider`	No
`credentialProfile`	No
`oneTimeCredential`	No
`fallbackPolicy`	No
`coverageHint`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool returns ranked candidates but does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or performance.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, multiple credential options), the description is far too brief and lacks essential details for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters, including complex nested objects like hint and credentialProfile, making it impossible for the agent to know how to provide inputs.

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 (extract) and resource (vessel signals from B/L-style text), and the mention of 'ranked candidates' differentiates it from sibling tools like vessel_search or vessel_position.

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 implies usage with B/L-style text but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like carrier_schedule_search or vessel_track.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server