Ship24 Tracking

Update Tracker

update_tracker

Idempotent

Partially updates a tracker (PATCH). Only provided fields are changed. Common uses: toggling isSubscribed, correcting destination details, or setting a clientTrackerId.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`searchBy`	No	How to interpret trackerId: default is Ship24 trackerId, use "clientTrackerId" for your own reference.
`settings`	No
`trackerId`	Yes	The tracker to update (Ship24 trackerId or clientTrackerId).
`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.
`isSubscribed`	No	true to subscribe to webhooks, false to unsubscribe.
`shippingDate`	No	Ship date (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO 8601). Immutable once tracking data exists.
`originCountryCode`	No	Origin country code (ISO alpha-2). Immutable once tracking data exists.
`destinationPostCode`	No
`destinationCountryCode`	No	Destination country code (ISO alpha-2). Immutable once tracking data exists.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tracker`	Yes	The tracker.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that only provided fields are changed, reinforcing the PATCH semantics. The annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It could mention immutability constraints, but those are already captured in the schema descriptions.

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 and front-loaded: it names the operation, the HTTP semantics, the partial-update rule, and common use cases in three short sentences. There is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role among its siblings, especially with the output schema and annotations available. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer update_tracker over create_tracker, but the partial-update framing and common-use examples cover most selection scenarios, and the schema handles parameter-level constraints.

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?

Schema description coverage is 78%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the general semantic that omitted fields remain unchanged, and hints at clientTrackerId usage, but it does not provide detailed parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already offers.

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 opens with 'Partially updates a tracker (PATCH)', a specific verb plus resource that clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from create/get/list siblings. It also clarifies the partial-update semantics and names concrete use cases such as toggling isSubscribed and correcting destination details.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate by listing common uses: toggling isSubscribed, correcting destination details, or setting a clientTrackerId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the PATCH semantics and 'only provided fields are changed' make the intended scenario reasonably clear.

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?