Ship24 Tracking

Create Tracker

create_tracker

Idempotent

Creates a new tracker for a tracking number. Use when the user explicitly wants ongoing monitoring or webhook updates; results arrive asynchronously — for immediate results use track or search_tracking. Idempotent: same parameters reuse the existing tracker; any field change creates a new one. Subscribes to webhook updates if configured. Returns the created tracker including its Ship24 trackerId.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`settings`	No
`courierCode`	No	Courier codes for this tracker (max 3). Use get_couriers for valid codes. IMPORTANT: Check each courier's requiredFields array — any listed fields should be provided, otherwise the courier may not return any tracking data.
`courierName`	No	Courier name (informational).
`orderNumber`	No	Associated order number.
`trackingUrl`	No	Courier tracking URL.
`shippingDate`	No	Date the package was shipped (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO 8601).
`trackingNumber`	Yes	Tracking number to monitor.
`clientTrackerId`	No	Your unique identifier for this tracker, for lookup via searchBy=clientTrackerId.
`originCountryCode`	No	Origin country code (ISO alpha-2, e.g. US).
`shipmentReference`	No	Internal reference for the shipment.
`destinationPostCode`	No	Destination postal/ZIP code.
`destinationCountryCode`	No	Destination country code (ISO alpha-2).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tracker`	Yes	The tracker.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explaining exactly what idempotency means here: same parameters reuse the existing tracker, while any field change creates a new one. Also discloses asynchronous webhook subscription behavior and specifies that the created tracker's Ship24 trackerId is returned in the response.

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?

Four sentences deliver the full behavioral contract without redundancy: creation purpose, usage timing, async behavior, idempotency, webhooks, and return value. The critical info is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all essential decision factors: when to use, what happens after creation, idempotency behavior, and what the response contains. No critical gap remains for an agent selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides 92% parameter coverage, so the description need not restate field meanings. The description adds context about parameter reuse via idempotency but no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new tracker') and explicitly distinguishes ongoing monitoring from immediate result tools ('for immediate results use track or search_tracking'). The description makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from its siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for use ('when the user explicitly wants ongoing monitoring or webhook updates') and names specific alternatives for the opposite case ('track or search_tracking'). Also explains the asynchronous nature of results, which is critical for proper tool selection.

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

All Ship24 Tracking 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools appear to answer the same 'where is my package?' question: search_tracking, search_tracking_by_number, track, and get_tracking_results. The descriptions explain subtle differences around billing, persistence, and account state, but the tool boundaries are still easy to blur during selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern such as create_tracker, get_tracker, list_trackers, update_tracker, and bulk_create_trackers. The bare verb 'track' breaks the pattern, and search_tracking_by_number is a bit awkward, but overall naming is predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is a reasonable, well-scoped size for a tracking service covering tracker lifecycle management, batch creation, search, couriers, and webhook operations. The count feels justified rather than padded.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers create, get, list, update, bulk creation, search, and webhook history/replay, which is fairly comprehensive. However, there is no delete_tracker or equivalent removal tool, leaving a notable lifecycle gap for stopping or cleaning up trackers.

Resources

Need Help?