Skip to main content
Glama

freightgate-mcp-server

by io.github.vinaybhosle

Get CFS Handling Tariffs

shippingrates_cfs_tariffs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Container Freight Station (CFS) handling tariffs — charges for LCL (Less than Container Load) cargo consolidation and deconsolidation at port warehouses.

Use this for LCL shipments to estimate warehouse handling costs. Returns per-unit handling rates, minimum charges, and storage fees at the specified port. Not relevant for FCL (Full Container Load) shipments.

PAID: $0.05/call via x402 (USDC on Base or Solana). Without payment, returns 402 with payment instructions.

Returns: Array of { facility, service_type, cargo_type, rate_per_unit, unit, minimum_charge, currency }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portYesUN/LOCODE port code (e.g. INMAA, INMUN)
serviceNoFilter by service type
x_paymentNox402 payment proof header
cargo_typeNoFilter by cargo type

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cargo_type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by cargo type",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / country
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ISO 2-letter country code",
-  "maxLength": 2,
-  "minLength": 2,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / line
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shipping line slug",
-  "enum": [
-    "maersk",
-    "msc",
-    "cma-cgm",
-    "hapag-lloyd",
-    "one",
-    "cosco"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / port
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "UN/LOCODE port code (e.g. INMAA, INMUN)",
+  "maxLength": 10,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / service
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by service type",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "line",
-  "country"
-]New value: +[
+  "port"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the payment requirement ($0.05/call via x402), the 402 error response without payment, and the exact return array structure. This adds significant context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: definition, usage guidance, payment note, and return format. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the description covers purpose, usage, payment, and return format. Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields. Annotations handle the safety profile. The main gap is that optional parameters are only minimally explained, but the schema partly covers that.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds some context by explaining what the returned data looks like, which slightly clarifies the meaning of 'service' and 'cargo_type' filters, but it does not add substantial parameter-level semantics beyond 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 the tool gets CFS handling tariffs for LCL cargo at port warehouses, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on CFS tariffs and noting it is not relevant for FCL shipments.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for LCL shipments to estimate warehouse handling costs') and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('Not relevant for FCL shipments'). However, it does not name alternative tools, so it falls short of the full 5 criteria.

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

All freightgate-mcp-server toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. For example, shippingrates_dd_calculate vs shippingrates_dd_compare handle single-carrier vs cross-carrier D&D analysis, and shippingrates_congestion, congestion_news, and risk_score cover different aspects of port conditions and route risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'shippingrates_<specific_name>' pattern using snake_case. The suffixes are descriptive and predictable (e.g., _calculate, _compare, _search, _schedule), making it easy for agents to infer functionality from names.

Tool Count4/5

With 25 tools, the set is comprehensive but slightly on the higher side. However, each tool serves a distinct function within the shipping intelligence domain, and no tool feels redundant. The count is appropriate for the broad scope of the server.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full spectrum of shipping logistics: freight rates, surcharges, local charges, demurrage/detention, inland haulage, transit schedules, vessel schedules, port/facility info, congestion, disruption news, risk scoring, regulatory updates, currency conversion, and discovery tools (search, stats). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources