container-loading

plan_load

Compute a 3D load plan for cargo into a container or truck: containers used, utilization (volume & payload %), centre of gravity, crush-protection violations, and a securing checklist (round cargo that rolls, soft cargo that slumps). Cargo type drives realism — drums/pipes hex-nest, big bags/sacks load on top and are never crushed. Omit equipmentCode to auto right-size to the cheapest container that fits. A real API key runs the production PackingSolver optimizer; the public demo key uses the offline preview packer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vgm`	No	SOLAS Verified Gross Mass declaration (else a tare+cargo estimate is reported)
`mode`	No	Transport mode — scopes auto right-size to usable equipment (sea→containers, road→trucks, air→ULDs). Ignored when equipmentCode is given.	sea
`items`	Yes	Cargo lines to load
`jurisdiction`	No	Road jurisdiction for the axle / gross-weight compliance check (default EU). Set CN for China GB 1589 drayage limits.
`vesselMotion`	No	IMO CSS Annex 13 vessel motion + stowage position. When set, the sea leg uses the position-dependent DYNAMIC acceleration field (a container on deck forward sees a far harsher case than one low amidships) instead of the flat sea-area coefficient.
`equipmentCode`	No	Equipment code, e.g. 40HC (see list_equipment). Omit to auto right-size.
`sequenceStops`	No	Delivery-stop sequencing: with ≥2 distinct deliveryStop values, zone the load nose→doors in reverse delivery order.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed14 schema fields changedAug 4, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / items / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / compatibilityGroup

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Class-1 explosives compatibility group (A–S).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / deliveryStop / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / limitedQuantity

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Shipped as a limited quantity (IMDG 3.4) — exempt from most segregation except vs class 1/7.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / marinePollutant

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Marine pollutant (IMDG 2.10 / MARPOL Annex III). Derived from the DGL.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / packingGroup

Added value: +{
+  "description": "IMDG packing group. Derived from the UN number when unNumber is set.",
+  "enum": [
+    "I",
+    "II",
+    "III"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / quantity / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / segregateFromGroups

Added value: +{
+  "description": "IMDG segregation groups to keep this substance away from (its DGL column-16b provisions).",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / segregationGroups

Added value: +{
+  "description": "IMDG 2.7.2.5 segregation groups this substance belongs to.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / subsidiaryHazards

Added value: +{
+  "description": "IMDG subsidiary hazard classes, e.g. [\"6.1\", \"8\"].",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / unNumber

Added value: +{
+  "description": "UN number, e.g. \"UN1263\" or \"1263\". When set, the engine DERIVES the IMDG class, packing group, subsidiary risks, marine-pollutant status, segregation groups, stowage category and EmS from the curated Dangerous Goods List — no need to hand-enter each. Explicit DG fields override the derived ones.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / vesselMotion

Added value: +{
+  "description": "IMO CSS Annex 13 vessel motion + stowage position. When set, the sea leg uses the position-dependent DYNAMIC acceleration field (a container on deck forward sees a far harsher case than one low amidships) instead of the flat sea-area coefficient.",
+  "properties": {
+    "bGmFactor": {
+      "description": "Explicit IMO CSS Annex 13 B/GM correction factor (fallback when bOverGm absent).",
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "bOverGm": {
+      "description": "Beam / metacentric-height ratio B/GM; derives the Annex 13 transverse B/GM correction.",
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "lengthFraction": {
+      "description": "Longitudinal stowage position as a fraction of ship length from the aft perpendicular (0=aft, 1=fore).",
+      "maximum": 1,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "lengthM": {
+      "description": "Ship length between perpendiculars (m); with speedKn, derives the Annex 13 length/speed correction (50–300 m).",
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "lengthSpeedFactor": {
+      "description": "Explicit IMO CSS Annex 13 length/speed correction factor (fallback when lengthM/speedKn absent).",
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "speedKn": {
+      "description": "Service speed (kn); pairs with lengthM.",
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "stowageZone": {
+      "description": "Vertical stowage zone.",
+      "enum": [
+        "onDeckHigh",
+        "onDeckLow",
+        "tweendeck",
+        "lowerHold"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "lengthFraction",
+    "stowageZone"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / vgm / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed5 schema fields changedJul 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / bulky

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Bulky/awkward — never takes a load on top and needs handling clearance",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / deliveryStop

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Multi-drop delivery-stop order (1 = first delivered, loaded last at the doors). ≥2 distinct stops + sequenceStops zones the load nose→doors.",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / thisSideUp

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Must stay upright — restricts the packer to upright orientations",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Road jurisdiction for the axle / gross-weight compliance check (default EU). Set CN for China GB 1589 drayage limits.",
+  "enum": [
+    "EU",
+    "US",
+    "CN"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / sequenceStops

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Delivery-stop sequencing: with ≥2 distinct deliveryStop values, zone the load nose→doors in reverse delivery order.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does well by explaining that cargo `type` drives realism (hex-nesting, top-loading big bags), that omitting `equipmentCode` triggers auto right-sizing to the cheapest container, and that the production key uses the PackingSolver optimizer while the demo key uses an offline preview packer. It does not disclose potential side effects or limitations, but for a computation tool this is adequate.

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, well-structured paragraph that uses colons and semicolons to pack multiple related details. It is not overly long, and every sentence adds meaningful information. While it is slightly more than two sentences, the density and organization make it concise 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?

Given the tool's high complexity, the rich input schema, and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of covering the main behaviors and expected outputs. It lists the return values (containers used, utilization, CoG, violations, checklist) and touches on edge behaviors like cargo type handling and auto right-sizing. It could mention mode handling or more details about the difference between production and preview, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that cargo `type` drives realism (e.g., drums hex-nest, big bags load on top and are never crushed) and that omitting `equipmentCode` triggers auto right-sizing. This helps the agent understand the intent of these parameters, justifying a 4.

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 what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute a 3D load plan for cargo into a container or truck.' It enumerates concrete outputs (containers used, utilization percentages, centre of gravity, crush-protection violations, securing checklist), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_equipment or suggest_containers. The scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (to compute a load plan) and provides important usage nuances, such as omitting `equipmentCode` to auto right-size and the distinction between a production API key and demo key. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative sibling tools or state conditions when one should choose a different tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All container-loading tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: listing equipment, suggesting containers, computing a 3D load plan, and exporting the plan. There is no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g., export_plan, list_equipment, plan_load, suggest_containers.

Tool Count5/5

4 tools is well-scoped for container loading: listing equipment, planning loads, suggesting containers, and exporting plans. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full workflow: equipment discovery (list_equipment), rough estimation (suggest_containers), detailed planning (plan_load), and final export (export_plan). No obvious gaps for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?