Italy Logistics (buy Poste Italiane + more labels + tracking via Shippo)
Server Details
Italy shipping labels for AI agents: buy Poste Italiane 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 has a distinct and clear purpose: create_shipment buys labels, query_tracking checks status, refund_label cancels unused labels. No functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_shipment, query_tracking, refund_label) using snake_case, with verbs that accurately describe the action.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but covers the core lifecycle of label creation, tracking, and refunds. It is appropriately scoped, though a tool to list or retrieve past shipments could be added.
The set covers the primary operations: create, track, and refund. Missing is a get_shipment or list_shipments for retrieving details of past purchases, but the create response provides enough info for immediate use.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_shipmentAInspect
Create a Italy 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 (EUR). Recommended carrier: Poste Italiane domestic parcels via the Shippo master account — no Poste Italiane contract or merchant account needed (Italy domestic only) — so an agent can print a Poste Italiane 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 CAP (e.g. "20121"). 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. "Poste Italiane"). Default: cheapest across all available carriers. | |
| service | No | Optional: restrict to a service level name or token (e.g. "Poste Delivery Business Express"). Default: cheapest. | |
| to_city | Yes | Recipient town / city. | |
| to_name | Yes | Recipient full name. | |
| from_zip | Yes | Sender CAP. Required. | |
| to_email | No | Optional recipient email. | |
| to_phone | No | Optional recipient phone (some carriers/services require it). | |
| to_state | No | Optional recipient provincia (provincia is optional for Italy 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 provincia. | |
| to_country | No | Recipient ISO country code. Default IT. | |
| 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 IT. | |
| 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?
Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: buys cheapest rate by default, can specify carrier/service, returns label URL and price, token prefix auto-selects environment, weight always required, owner policy headers gate price. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Description is detailed yet structured, front-loaded with core action. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value and is well-organized.
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?
Tool has 25 parameters, no output schema. Description covers essential return fields (shipment_id, tracking_number, label_url, price), token environments, carrier recommendations, and prerequisites. Complete for the complexity level.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by specifying default units (dimensions in CM, weight in GRAMS), mentioning length+width+height together, and mass_unit options. Adds value 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 the tool creates an Italy shipping label via Shippo, mentioning the specific steps: pass addresses and parcel, server fetches rates, buys cheapest, returns shipment details. It distinguishes from sibling tools (query_tracking, refund_label) through unique 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?
Provides clear context for usage: Italy domestic shipping via Shippo, recommends Poste Italiane, notes no merchant account needed, and token handling. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but given siblings, usage is well-defined.
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 Italy 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 "poste_italiane"; 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. "poste_italiane", "usps", or "shippo" for TEST mock numbers). Default "poste_italiane". | |
| 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?
The description adds context beyond annotations: it states the tool is safe to call anytime, explains the status enum values, and notes that raw carrier scan details are always included. This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.
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 concise, uses a few well-structured sentences, and fronts the main action. It efficiently provides necessary context without redundancy.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers what the agent needs: purpose, parameters with examples, return information, and safety. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning: it explains the default carrier ('poste_italiane'), test usage with 'shippo' and specific mock numbers, and clarifies that tracking_number can come from create_shipment or any carrier.
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 an Italy shipment using tracking_number and carrier, distinguishing it from siblings create_shipment and refund_label. It specifies the return of current status with plain-English hint and includes details on status enum values.
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 guidance on when to use (tracking shipments) and includes test-specific instructions (carrier='shippo', mock numbers). It implies when to use vs. alternatives by mentioning the default carrier and the relationship to create_shipment, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use.
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 Italy 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?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it explains that refund is only for unused labels, describes refund statuses (QUEUED, PENDING, SUCCESS, ERROR) and notes carriers may take time to process. This gives necessary transparency for agent decision-making.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, condition, and return outcomes without redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and their meanings. For a single-parameter tool, this covers the necessary context for an agent to invoke and interpret results.
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 the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. The parameter 'transaction_id' is described as 'returned by create_shipment (the bought label to refund)', clarifying its origin and purpose.
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 action ('request a refund'), the specific resource ('Italy shipping label bought via create_shipment'), and the key identifier ('transaction_id'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools ('create_shipment' for buying, 'query_tracking' for 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?
The description explicitly states when to use (unused labels not scanned by carrier) and when not (already-shipped labels cannot be refunded). It also explains possible return statuses, helping the agent understand outcomes. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools beyond context.
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!