Secureship MCP gives AI assistants access to a multi-carrier shipping API covering rate comparison, label generation, package tracking, pickup scheduling, address book management, shipment history, customs documents, and more — across carriers like UPS, FedEx, Purolator, Canpar, and others. Browse 150+ live endpoint schemas, parameters, and auth details — always current, never stale.
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: GetAuthInfo provides authentication instructions, ListEndpoints offers discovery, SearchDocs enables targeted searching, and GetEndpointDetail gives detailed schemas. The descriptions explicitly guide when to use each tool, preventing misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (GetAuthInfo, GetEndpointDetail, ListEndpoints, SearchDocs) with clear, descriptive naming. There are no deviations in style or convention, making the set predictable and readable.
With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of API documentation and discovery. Each tool earns its place by covering essential steps: authentication guidance, endpoint listing, searching, and detailed schema retrieval, without being overly sparse or bloated.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain of API exploration and usage. It supports the full workflow from initial authentication to endpoint discovery, search, and detailed schema access, with no obvious gaps that would hinder an agent in interacting with the Secureship API.
GetAuthInfoGet Authentication InfoAGet Secureship API authentication instructions. Call this FIRST before generating any code examples with authentication headers. Secureship uses X-API-KEY header authentication, NOT Bearer tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the specific authentication scheme (X-API-KEY header) and explicitly warns against Bearer tokens. This gives the agent actionable knowledge it wouldn't get from the schema or annotations alone, though it doesn't describe the exact response format.
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 totaling about 20 words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second delivers a critical usage instruction plus a key distinguishing detail. No words are wasted, and every piece of information earns its place.
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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to call it, and the essential authentication detail. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on auth info. For an informational tool, this fully covers the agent's needs.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this scores a 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does clarify that the tool returns 'authentication instructions' and highlights the key header type, adding semantic value beyond the empty 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's purpose: 'Get Secureship API authentication instructions.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('authentication instructions'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (GetEndpointDetail, ListEndpoints, SearchDocs) by focusing solely on authentication. The explicit instruction to 'Call this FIRST' further clarifies its unique role.
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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST before generating any code examples with authentication headers.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool. It also warns against using Bearer tokens, which helps prevent incorrect usage. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context makes it clear that this is the preliminary step for authentication-related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GetEndpointDetailGet Endpoint SchemaAGet the full schema for a specific Secureship API endpoint — all parameters, request body fields, response format, and authentication requirements. Use after SearchDocs identifies the right endpoint. Authentication uses the X-API-KEY header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Endpoint path, e.g. /v1/shipment/in-progress or /v1/carriers/rates | |
| method | Yes | HTTP method: GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by describing a read operation. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: authentication via X-API-KEY header and the specific scope of returned data. This is helpful but does not cover error cases or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and authentication note. No wasted words; every clause adds 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, returned content, and authentication—enough for correct selection and invocation. The mention of SearchDocs provides workflow context.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (method and path) with clear descriptions and examples. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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 retrieves the full schema for a specific Secureship API endpoint, enumerating contents (params, request body, response format, auth). This distinguishes it from siblings like SearchDocs or ListEndpoints, which locate endpoints rather than fetch detailed schemas.
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 says 'Use after SearchDocs identifies the right endpoint,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like ListEndpoints, so it stops short of the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ListEndpointsList API EndpointsAList all Secureship API endpoints, optionally filtered by category. Categories include: carriers, shipment, history, address-book, auth, account, users, invoices, pickups, documents, integrations, settings, dashboard. Use for discovery when you don't know which endpoint to search for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | Optional category filter, e.g. 'carriers' or 'address-book'. Omit to list all endpoints. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description describes a read-only listing operation, so no contradiction. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all endpoints') and providing the category list, giving useful behavioral 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes useful information (categories and usage guidance). No wasted words.
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 simple list tool with one parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, scope, categories, and when to use it. Minor missing details like response format are not critical given the simplicity.
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% for the category parameter, but the description adds a list of example categories, which is helpful. However, there is an inconsistency: the schema marks category as required while both the description and property description say it's optional. This could confuse agents, but the description aligns with the property description.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Secureship API endpoints'), clearly stating the action and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetEndpointDetail (specific endpoint details) and SearchDocs (search documentation) by focusing on listing all endpoints for discovery purposes.
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 says 'Use for discovery when you don't know which endpoint to search for,' which gives a clear when-to-use scenario. It implicitly differentiates from alternatives by implying that if you already know the endpoint, you would search or get details, though it doesn't name the alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
SearchDocsSearch API DocumentationASearch Secureship API documentation. Use when you need to find endpoints for a specific task (e.g. 'create a shipment', 'get rates', 'address book'). Returns matching endpoints with method, path, summary, and tags. Follow up with GetEndpointDetail to get full parameter schemas. IMPORTANT: Secureship API uses the X-API-KEY header for authentication (NOT Bearer token). Pass your API key as: X-API-KEY: your-api-key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural language or keyword query, e.g. 'create label', 'track package', 'address book' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds valuable context about the X-API-KEY authentication header (instead of Bearer), and explains that it returns summary-level info and recommends GetEndpointDetail for full schemas.
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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and an important authentication note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words.
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 one-parameter search tool, it covers the use case, return format, follow-up step, and critical authentication detail. It lacks mention of result limits or error behavior, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.
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 query parameter is well-described with examples in the schema itself. The description repeats similar examples but does not add new meaning or clarify formatting beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 that the tool searches Secureship API documentation and returns matching endpoints with method, path, summary, and tags. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on task-specific search rather than listing all endpoints or retrieving details.
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 explicitly says 'Use when you need to find endpoints for a specific task' and directs follow-up to GetEndpointDetail for full parameter schemas. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use ListEndpoints or GetAuthInfo, so a clear alternative/exclusion is missing.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
