A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenancePlan optimal container & truck loads: 3D layouts, right-size the container mix, and check utilization, centre of gravity, crush protection and securing across 200+ equipment types.
16
MIT
Zhihuo Container Loading
Server Details
How many identical cartons fit in a container or space, where they go, plus a 3D loading plan.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolspack_boxesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Calculate how many identical boxes fit in a rectangular space, and where.
The space is a shipping container, a pallet area, leftover container space,
or a larger box. Give the box's L/W/H and EITHER a `container` preset OR the
space's L/W/H (all in millimetres - container presets are mm). Boxes mix
orientations across regions to pack densely; the plain maximum-load answer
uses the exact SmartPacker T solver.
Args:
box_length: Box length.
box_width: Box width.
box_height: Box height.
container: Container preset instead of explicit space dims (fills the
internal usable L/W/H in mm; overrides space_* when recognised).
ISO dry: 20GP 20HQ 40GP 40HQ 45GP 45HQ; NA domestic: 53HC 48HC;
reefers: 20RF 40RF 40RH; EU pallet-wide: 40HQ-PW 45HQ-PW. Many
aliases (20/40/45, 20ft, 40HC, 40', 40 reefer, ...).
space_length: Space length (front-back). Use this OR `container`.
space_width: Space width (left-right).
space_height: Space height (up).
count: How many boxes to load. 0 (default) loads the maximum.
to_front: Anchor a partial load to the front (else the back).
to_left: Anchor a partial load to the left (else the right).
to_bottom: Anchor a partial load to the bottom (else the top).
box_weight: Weight of one box (optional; same unit as max_weight).
max_weight: Max total load weight (optional; 0 = no weight limit).
include_image: Set true ONLY when the user wants to SEE or visualize
the loading plan / 3D layout (e.g. "show the loading plan",
"visualize it", "what does it look like?"). Default false is
faster and lighter and still returns `image_url`, a shareable
link to the 3D render. When true, the image is ALSO embedded
inline (Claude Desktop and Cherry Studio display it; the
claude.ai web app shows only the link either way).
Returns the maximum that fits, how many were loaded, the fill rate, the
region/block decomposition (each block's position, orientation, and
grid), any weight limit applied, an `image_url` link to the rendered 3D
loading plan, and - when include_image is true - the inline image too.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| to_left | No | ||
| to_front | No | ||
| box_width | Yes | ||
| container | No | ||
| to_bottom | No | ||
| box_height | Yes | ||
| box_length | Yes | ||
| box_weight | No | ||
| max_weight | No | ||
| space_width | No | ||
| space_height | No | ||
| space_length | No | ||
| include_image | No |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details the tool's behavior, including that it is read-only (matching readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). It explains the return structure, the effect of 'include_image' on performance, and default settings. This adds significant context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long (22 lines) but well-structured: a concise intro, then an Args section with line items, and a return description. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Despite length, every sentence adds value and it is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (14), no output schema, and absence of sibling tools for comparison, the description is complete. It covers all inputs, default behaviors, return values (including image_url and inline image), and usage context such as container presets and aliases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter: box dimensions, container aliases, space dimensions, count (0 means maximal), anchor positions, weight limits, and include_image. The description provides full semantic meaning for all 14 parameters.
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 'Calculate how many identical boxes fit in a rectangular space, and where.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from the only sibling 'send_feedback' by focusing on packing calculation.
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 explains when to use the tool: provide box dimensions and either a container preset or explicit space dimensions. It also clarifies the 'include_image' parameter usage: only when visualization is needed. No explicit exclusions are given, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_feedbackAInspect
Send a question, suggestion, or bug report about this container-loading tool to the Zhihuo maintainers.
Use this when the user wants to ask the tool's authors a question,
suggest an improvement (e.g. another container type or output field),
or report a result that looks wrong. The note reaches the Zhihuo team.
Args:
message: The question, suggestion, or bug report, in plain text.
contact: Optional email or handle if the user would like a reply.
category: Optional tag - "question", "suggestion", "bug", or "other".
Returns a short confirmation string.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| category | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds that feedback reaches the Zhihuo team and includes optional contact/category. No contradictions.
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?
Description is well-structured with a brief intro, usage paragraph, and Args. It's front-loaded with purpose, but slightly verbose with the Args section. Still concise enough.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description succinctly notes it returns a short confirmation string. All three parameters are explained, and usage guidance is provided. No gaps for a feedback tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter: message as plain text, contact as optional email/handle, category as optional tag with specific values. This adds essential meaning 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 explicitly states it sends a question, suggestion, or bug report to maintainers. It uses specific verbs and resource, and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'pack_boxes' which deals with packing.
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 lists clear use cases: user questions, improvement suggestions, bug reports. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the list is comprehensive and no alternative tools are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
pack_boxes - First observed
send_feedback
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Plan optimal container & truck loads: 3D layouts, utilization, centre of gravity, crush checks.
Pack cargo into containers & onto pallets; a verifiable 3D loading plan. Free tier + REST API.
Truck & trailer load planning from a plain-English shipment: what fits, how full, 3D load plan.
11Load planning for containers, trucks and pallets from a plain-English description; 3D plan link.
11
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to plan container and truck loads from plain-English shipment descriptions, returning fitted containers, utilization, non-fitting items, and interactive 3D load plans.1257MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to pack trucks and shipping containers by generating validated 3D load plans with metrics like LDM, linear feet, and pallet positions through the Hansatic packing API.319MIT
@kubova/mcpofficial
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceLets AI agents pack shipping containers using the Kubova calculator, with tools for container loading and API key verification.419MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools are completely distinct: pack_boxes performs container loading calculations, while send_feedback is for contacting the tool maintainers. There is no overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: pack_boxes and send_feedback. The naming is consistent and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
The server has only two tools, which is slightly minimal for a container loading server but still acceptable. The feedback tool is auxiliary, and the core functionality is captured in a single, powerful tool.
Completeness3/5
The main packing tool is comprehensive, but there is no tool to list available container presets or retrieve their dimensions. Users must rely on the tool's internal knowledge of presets, which could be considered a minor gap.