vessel-traffic-mcp

Vessel Track

vessel_track

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve recent vessel track points by MMSI or IMO, with optional ISO-8601 time window for bounding results.

Instructions

Return the recent track points for a vessel by MMSI or IMO, optionally bounded by ISO-8601 windowStart/windowEnd.

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": "vessel_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mmsi`	No
`imo`	No
`windowStart`	No
`windowEnd`	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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'recent' and time-bounding, but does not disclose pagination, data limits, or credential behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No filler or redundancy. Achieves maximum efficiency.

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 annotations, the description omits essential context: return format, credential handling, provider selection logic, fallback and coverage semantics. With 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse.

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 0%. The description only mentions MMSI/IMO and time window parameters, leaving 5 undocumented parameters (provider, credentialProfile, oneTimeCredential, fallbackPolicy, coverageHint) unexplained. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 recent track points for a vessel by MMSI or IMO, with optional time bounds. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like vessel_position (likely current position) and vessel_search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vessel_position for current position, port_calls for port events). The description implies historical track retrieval but does not outline scenarios 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