Australia Logistics (buy Aramex + more labels + tracking via Shippo)
Server Details
Australia shipping labels for AI agents: buy Aramex and more, track and refund via Shippo.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: creating shipments, tracking them, and requesting refunds. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (create_shipment, query_tracking, refund_label) using consistent snake_case.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but covers the essential operations for a logistics server focused on label creation, tracking, and refunds.
Core workflows (create, track, refund) are covered. Missing a tool to list or manage existing shipments, but the provided tools handle primary use cases.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_shipmentAInspect
Create a Australia shipping label via Shippo — pass a to_address, from_address and parcel (dimensions in CENTIMETRES, weight in GRAMS by default), and the server fetches carrier rates, buys the CHEAPEST rate by default (or the carrier/service you specify), and returns the shipment_id, transaction_id, tracking_number, printable label_url and the price paid (AUD). Recommended carrier: Aramex Australia parcels via the Shippo master account — no Aramex contract or merchant account needed — so an agent can print a Aramex label with no merchant courier account. Bring your own Shippo API token via header x-shippo-token: free TEST tokens (prefix shippo_test_…) run the full flow end-to-end at no cost (sign up free, no card, at apps.goshippo.com/join); production tokens (prefix shippo_live_…) buy real labels. The token prefix auto-selects the environment. weight is always required. Owner policy headers gate the label price before any purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | Parcel width in CENTIMETRES. | |
| height | No | Parcel height in CENTIMETRES. | |
| length | No | Parcel length in CENTIMETRES (cm) by default. Provide length+width+height together. | |
| to_zip | Yes | Recipient postcode (e.g. "2000"). Required. | |
| weight | Yes | Parcel weight in GRAMS (g) by default. Required. Use mass_unit to change (kg/oz/lb). | |
| carrier | No | Optional: restrict to a carrier (e.g. "Aramex"). Default: cheapest across all available carriers. | |
| service | No | Optional: restrict to a service level name or token (e.g. "Parcel"). Default: cheapest. | |
| to_city | Yes | Recipient town / city. | |
| to_name | Yes | Recipient full name. | |
| from_zip | Yes | Sender postcode. Required. | |
| to_email | No | Optional recipient email. | |
| to_phone | No | Optional recipient phone (some carriers/services require it). | |
| to_state | No | Optional recipient state (state is optional for Australia addresses). | |
| from_city | Yes | Sender town / city. | |
| from_name | Yes | Sender full name. | |
| mass_unit | No | Weight unit: g (default), kg, oz or lb. | |
| from_phone | No | Optional sender phone. | |
| from_state | No | Optional sender state. | |
| to_country | No | Recipient ISO country code. Default AU. | |
| to_street1 | Yes | Recipient street address line 1. | |
| to_street2 | No | Optional recipient street address line 2 (flat/unit). | |
| from_country | No | Sender ISO country code. Default AU. | |
| from_street1 | Yes | Sender street address line 1. | |
| from_street2 | No | Optional sender street address line 2. | |
| distance_unit | No | Dimension unit: cm (default), m, in or ft. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly=false, openWorldHint=true, not idempotent, not destructive. Description adds that it buys cheapest rate, uses token prefix for environment, and requires owner policy headers—consistent with annotations and adds value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly long. Every sentence adds value, but could be trimmed slightly without loss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 25 params and no output schema, description covers flow end-to-end: token setup, units, default cheap rate, recommended carrier, and key outputs. It's fairly complete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by stating default units, that weight is always required, and recommending Aramex carrier, which goes beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates an Australia shipping label via Shippo, fetches rates, buys cheapest, and returns key details like shipment_id, tracking_number, and label_url. It distinguishes from siblings (query_tracking, refund_label) by being the creation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It says when to use (to ship a parcel within Australia), provides setup guidance (Shippo token, units), and recommends carrier. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_trackingARead-onlyInspect
Track a Australia shipment by its tracking_number (the one create_shipment returned, or any carrier tracking number) plus its carrier. Returns the current status with a plain-English hint. Status values (Shippo enum): UNKNOWN, PRE_TRANSIT (label made, not yet picked up), TRANSIT, DELIVERED, RETURNED, FAILURE. Raw carrier scan details are always included. carrier defaults to "aramex"; for TEST tokens use carrier="shippo" with mock numbers SHIPPO_TRANSIT / SHIPPO_DELIVERED. Safe to call anytime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrier | No | Carrier token for the lookup (e.g. "aramex", "usps", or "shippo" for TEST mock numbers). Default "aramex". | |
| tracking_number | Yes | The tracking number to look up (from create_shipment or a carrier). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining status enum values, raw carrier scan details, and that it's safe to call anytime.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose first, then status details, raw data, and usage notes. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description fully covers expected output (status, raw details) and all operational nuances (carrier defaults, test numbers). No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds meaning: carrier defaults to 'aramex', TEST token usage, tracking_number sources. This aids correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tracks Australia shipments by tracking number and carrier, returning status with plain-English hint. It distinguishes from siblings (create_shipment, refund_label) by its read-only tracking purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage, including default carrier and TEST token instructions. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling context implies tracking after creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
refund_labelAIdempotentInspect
Request a refund for a Australia shipping label bought via create_shipment, by its transaction_id. Refund is only possible for UNUSED labels that were never scanned by the carrier; already-shipped labels cannot be refunded. Returns refund_status: QUEUED / PENDING (accepted, carrier still processing — most common), SUCCESS (money returned), or ERROR (not eligible, e.g. already scanned). Carriers can take time to move QUEUED/PENDING → SUCCESS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes | The transaction_id returned by create_shipment (the bought label to refund). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the possible refund_status values and the processing timeline, adding context beyond annotations which indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. It could mention error handling for invalid transaction_ids.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: first states action and identifier, second gives eligibility constraint, third explains return values. No fluff, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and return statuses completely. Adequate for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter with full schema coverage. The description reinforces the meaning but adds little beyond the schema's property description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Request a refund' for a specific resource 'Australia shipping label' from 'create_shipment' using 'transaction_id'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on refund vs creation or tracking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states the tool is only for UNUSED labels that were never scanned, providing a clear usage condition. It does not mention alternatives, but given the sibling list, this tool is the only refund option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!