capabilities

Detect the carrier from a tracking number

parcel_detect_carrier

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify which carrier issued a tracking number using a deterministic, versioned signature set - prefixes, lengths, carrier check digits and UPU S10 structure - returning the carrier, how distinctive the match is, every ranked candidate with typed evidence, and the parsed S10 details. No upstream call and no carrier account required. Use when: Which carrier is this tracking number from? Not for: You need tracking events, status or delivery estimates - not yet available. Price: USD 0.001/call (x402), 0.001 (account key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`origin_country`	No	Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 origin country hint. Used only as a small tie-breaker; it never invents a candidate.
`tracking_number`	Yes	Tracking or consignment number. Spaces and hyphens are removed and letters upper-cased before matching (4-40 letters and digits after normalisation). Digits and letters are never altered.
`destination_country`	No	Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 destination country hint. Used only as a small tie-breaker; it never invents a candidate.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Capability output; full JSON Schema at https://api.eckari.com/v1/capabilities/parcel.detect_carrier
`meta`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is deterministic, uses a versioned signature set, explains how country hints are used only as tie-breakers without inventing candidates, and mentions pricing. The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) and adds rich operational detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, with clear sentences covering purpose, method, output, usage guidelines, and pricing. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no fluff. Structure front-loads the action, then method, then guidance.

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 tool's complexity (carrier detection, ranking, S10 parsing, pricing) and that an output schema exists, the description is impressively complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, when/not to use it, costs, and parameter semantics. No gaps are evident for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how 'origin_country' and 'destination_country' are purely tie-breakers and never invent candidates, and how 'tracking_number' is normalized (spaces/hyphens removed, letters upper-cased). This is helpful context beyond the schema's regex and length constraints.

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 the tool's purpose: identify which carrier issued a tracking number. It uses specific verbs like 'detect' and 'identify', describes the deterministic method (prefixes, lengths, check digits, UPU S10), and lists what the tool returns. It is well-distinguished from siblings which are in different domains (company, domain, fx, location, weather).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides a use case ('Which carrier is this tracking number from?') and a clear 'not for' case (tracking events, status, delivery estimates). It also mentions no upstream call or carrier account required, which sets expectations for when not to look elsewhere.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All capabilities tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct, targeting specific entities (UK company, US company, domain, LEI, FX, location, parcel, weather) or sub-aspects (e.g., accounts vs. charges vs. directors). Overlap exists between company.uk.profile and company.uk.status (both contain status info, but the latter is cheaper and focused). Also, company.uk.filings and company.us.filings_latest could be confused if an agent generalizes 'filings' across jurisdictions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pattern: domain_entity_subject (e.g., company_uk_accounts, domain_expiry, weather_us_alerts). Underscores and lower case are used throughout. Verbs are implied by the noun (e.g., 'search' for lookup, 'detect' for identification). No mixed conventions or unpredictable names.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the high side but still reasonable for a general-purpose data server spanning multiple domains (company, domain, entity, fx, location, parcel, weather). Each domain gets a cohesive set, and the documentation justifies each tool. Could be slightly leaner if some niche tools (e.g., domain_expiry vs. registration) were merged, but overall scoping is acceptable.

Completeness4/5

Each domain offers good coverage: UK company tools cover CRUD-like operations (profile, status, search, filings, charges, directors, owners, registered office); similarly for US companies (profile, filings, resolve, latest filings). Weather has forecast, observation, alerts. Parcel only detects carrier (no tracking). Missing features like advanced filtering on company filings or less common domains, but core workflows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?