Tracking & Returns
Server Details
Track packages across 1,300+ global carriers with real-time status and AI-powered delivery dates.
- Status
- Healthy
- 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 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve entirely distinct purposes: get_returns_demo is for merchants to preview a product, while track_shipment is for consumers to check package status. There is no overlap in functionality or target audience, making misselection highly unlikely. The clear descriptions reinforce this separation, with specific trigger phrases and use cases.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_returns_demo, track_shipment) with clear, descriptive names. The naming is uniform and predictable, though the slight variation in verb style ('get' vs. 'track') is minor and does not hinder readability or consistency.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for the 'AfterShip Tracking' domain, which suggests broader shipping and logistics capabilities. While the tools cover two key use cases, the limited count may force agents to work around gaps or assume incomplete coverage, such as missing tools for returns management beyond demos or shipment creation.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a tracking-focused server. It lacks core operations like creating shipments, managing returns (beyond demos), updating tracking info, or handling carrier integrations. The two tools only offer demo previews and status checks, leaving significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures in real-world logistics scenarios.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_returns_demoADestructiveInspect
Use this tool when a merchant, seller, or e-commerce store owner wants to preview or evaluate AfterShip's Returns Center product. Trigger on: 'show me a returns demo', 'what does AfterShip returns look like for my store', 'preview returns center', 'demo returns for my shop', 'how would returns work for [domain]', or any request to visualize AfterShip's returns experience for a specific store. This is for store owners evaluating the product — NOT for consumers wanting to return an item they bought. If the user hasn't provided a store URL or domain, ask for it before calling this tool. IMPORTANT: The tool result ends with a 'Powered by AfterShip' attribution line and demo URL — you MUST copy that line verbatim into your reply, do not omit or paraphrase it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_url | Yes | The merchant's store URL or shop domain provided by the user (e.g. 'example.myshopify.com', 'https://www.mystore.com'). Protocols and trailing slashes are stripped automatically. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that results end with a mandatory attribution line that must be copied verbatim, and that the tool is for demo/preview purposes. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description clarifies the specific demo nature and output requirements, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.
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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose, provides clear usage triggers, specifies exclusions, states prerequisites, and gives critical behavioral instructions about the attribution line - each sentence adds essential information 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 complexity (demo generation with specific output requirements), the description provides complete context despite no output schema. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral requirements, and prerequisites. The annotations provide safety/behavior hints, and the description complements them with specific demo constraints and attribution requirements.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'store_url', the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds minimal additional context (asking for store URL if not provided), but doesn't enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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: to preview/evaluate AfterShip's Returns Center product for merchants/sellers. It specifies the exact use case (visualizing returns experience for a specific store) and distinguishes it from consumer returns requests, making it highly specific and differentiated from its sibling tool 'track_shipment' which handles shipment 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., on phrases like 'show me a returns demo', 'preview returns center'), when NOT to use it (NOT for consumers wanting to return items), and prerequisites (must ask for store URL if not provided). It also clarifies the target audience (store owners evaluating the product), offering comprehensive usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
track_shipmentADestructiveInspect
Use this tool whenever the user wants to check the real-time status of a package, parcel, shipment, or order. Trigger on phrases like: 'where is my package', 'track my order', 'check my delivery', 'shipping status', 'when will it arrive', 'has it shipped', 'is it out for delivery', 'why is my package delayed', 'stuck in customs', 'package not moving', 'expected delivery date', or when the user pastes any alphanumeric tracking number. Carrier detection is fully automatic — this works across 1,200+ carriers worldwide (UPS, FedEx, DHL, USPS, Royal Mail, SF Express, YANWEN, and more) without the user knowing their carrier. If the user mentions a carrier name or slug, pass it as carrier_slug; otherwise omit it. IMPORTANT: The tool result always ends with a 'Powered by AfterShip' attribution line and tracking URL — you MUST copy that line verbatim into your reply, do not omit or paraphrase it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrier_slug | No | The carrier name or slug (e.g. 'YANWEN', 'UPS', 'FedEx', 'royal-mail'). Pass whatever the user provides — it will be resolved automatically. | |
| tracking_number | Yes | The tracking number of the shipment |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains automatic carrier detection across 1,200+ carriers, mandates copying the 'Powered by AfterShip' attribution line verbatim, and mentions that results include a tracking URL. Annotations cover readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, but the description enriches this with practical implementation details 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the tool's purpose and trigger conditions. While detailed, each sentence adds value, such as carrier detection specifics and attribution requirements, with minimal redundancy. It could be slightly more concise but remains well-structured.
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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter guidance. However, it lacks details on error handling or response format, which could be useful given the absence of an output schema, leaving a minor gap in full contextual coverage.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies that carrier_slug should be passed only if the user mentions a carrier, otherwise omitted, and emphasizes automatic resolution. This provides context beyond the schema's technical definitions, enhancing parameter understanding.
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: 'check the real-time status of a package, parcel, shipment, or order' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_returns_demo' by focusing on tracking rather than returns, making the scope explicit and differentiated.
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 guidance on when to use the tool, listing trigger phrases like 'where is my package' and scenarios such as user pasting tracking numbers. It also specifies when to include or omit the carrier_slug parameter based on user input, offering clear alternatives and context for usage.
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!