vessel-traffic-mcp

Schedule Delay Predict

schedule_delay_predict

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare planned vessel arrivals and departures with actual or estimated times to predict schedule delays, returning an on-time, at-risk, or delayed status.

Instructions

Compare planned carrier schedule timestamps with estimated/actual timestamps and return an on-time, at-risk, delayed, or unknown heuristic.

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": "schedule_delay_predict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plannedArrivalAt`	No
`estimatedArrivalAt`	No
`actualArrivalAt`	No
`plannedDepartureAt`	No
`actualDepartureAt`	No
`currentPositionObservedAt`	No
`now`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the heuristic logic (comparison of timestamps) and the output categories, which is helpful beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and output. No unnecessary words or information.

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?

With 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain which parameters are needed for different scenarios, the heuristic logic, or what the output looks like. More detail is needed for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It does not explain any of the seven parameters individually or how they relate to each other. The description only vaguely references 'timestamps' without specifying which parameter corresponds to what.

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 ('Compare'), the resources ('planned carrier schedule timestamps with estimated/actual timestamps'), and the output ('on-time, at-risk, delayed, or unknown heuristic'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like carrier_schedule_search and port_calls by focusing on delay prediction.

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 this tool is for comparing timestamps to predict delays, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server