teapplix_trackTrack a shipment by carrier and tracking number. Returns a delivery summary plus a chronological TrackingEvents array. [DEMO]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carrier | No | Carrier name (e.g. UPS, FedEx, USPS). | |
| TrackingNumber | No | Shipment tracking number. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| CarrierName | No | ||
| IsDelivered | No | ||
| TrackingEvents | No | ||
| TrackingNumber | No | ||
| EstimatedDeliveryDate | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return format: 'a delivery summary plus a chronological TrackingEvents array.' The '[DEMO]' flag also indicates a demo mode. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that communicates purpose, required inputs, and output behavior with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.
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?
For a simple read-only tracking tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return behavior. The readOnlyHint annotation addresses safety, and the output schema covers return details. No significant gaps remain.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description only restates the parameter names ('by carrier and tracking number') without adding additional semantic context, so it meets the baseline but doesn't elevate it.
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 function: 'Track a shipment by carrier and tracking number.' It specifies both the verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tracking, which no other tool covers.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to track a shipment) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tracking tools, the context is clear, but it lacks explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.