ActionShip by Teapplix Demo

Purchase Label for Order

teapplix_purchase_label_for_order

Destructive

Purchase a shipping label for an existing Teapplix order. Requires TxnId, From (ship-from address or profile), and a Packages array (each package must include Method; Weight and Dimensions default to the order's stored values if omitted). [DEMO]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`From`	Yes	Ship-from address OR a saved shipping profile — supply exactly one shape.
`TxnId`	Yes	Teapplix order ID to purchase label for.
`Options`	No	Advanced, rarely used. Omit unless the user explicitly requests features such as signature confirmation, insurance type, COD, etc.
`Packages`	Yes	One or more packages. The first entry is the main package; additional entries are extra packages. Each package must include Method; Weight and Dimensions default to the order's stored values if omitted. All packages must use the same carrier.
`ShipDate`	No	Ship date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today. Interpreted as Pacific timezone.
`CustomsDeclaration`	No	International shipments only. Omit unless shipping outside the domestic country. Fields: ReasonForExport, IOssNumber, Items: [{Description, Quantity, Value, Weight, HSTariffNumber, CountryOfOrigin}].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`Status`	No
`LabelData`	No	Label bytes; one entry per package. Content is base64-encoded.
`TrackingInfo`	No
`DocumentsData`	No	Additional documents (customs forms, return slips, etc.).
`PostageAmount`	No
`ClientRequestId`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not repeat destructive side effects. It adds context that Weight/Dimensions default to stored values and that From can be an address or profile, but does not disclose financial implications, irreversibility beyond annotations, or the meaning of the [DEMO] tag. The added value is moderate but not rich.

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 two sentences, with the action front-loaded and requirements summarized compactly. The [DEMO] tag is a minimal addition. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, advanced options), the description gives a clear orientation of core requirements. Advanced parameters like Options, ShipDate, and CustomsDeclaration are not mentioned, but they are well-documented in the schema. The output schema further reduces the need to describe return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent guided by the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates key requirements (TxnId, From, Packages, Method, weight/dimension defaults) that are already present in the schema descriptions. It does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Purchase') and resource ('shipping label for an existing Teapplix order'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling teapplix_purchase_label. The mention of 'existing order' plus required TxnId makes the purpose unequivocal.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for existing orders by requiring TxnId, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like teapplix_get_rates_for_order or teapplix_purchase_label. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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

All ActionShip by Teapplix Demo 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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (orders, labels, rates, zones, profiles). A few name pairs like manage_tag vs manage_order_tags and set_order_ship_options vs update_order could be confused, but the descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools share the teapplix_ prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_orders, create_order, purchase_label, validate_address). The only deviation is the bare 'help' tool, which is conventional and does not disrupt the pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 28 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range, but the breadth of shipping operations (orders, labels, rates, manifests, tracking, configuration) justifies the count. It is not bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full order-to-shipping lifecycle: order create/update/retrieve, splitting/merging, label purchase and cancellation, rate quotes, tracking, manifesting, address validation, 3PL submission, and configuration (profiles, warehouses, queues, tags). No significant gaps are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?