Temsor API — Turkey & EU business data

Tracking Number Identification

shipping_identify

Identifies which carrier a tracking number belongs to, validates it where a checksum exists, and returns the canonical tracking link.

Built for order systems that receive numbers from many carriers and have to route the customer to the right tracking page. Turkish carriers mostly use plain numeric ranges that overlap, so a single confident answer is often impossible — this returns a ranked candidate list instead of inventing certainty, because sending a customer to the wrong carrier's page makes them think the parcel is lost. Universal Postal Union (S10) numbers are fully verified: the mod-11 check digit is computed, the service type and origin country are decoded. For formats whose checksum we have not verified against the standard, the result says not-verified rather than guessing — a wrong rejection is worse than an honest unknown. Delivery status is deliberately out of scope: Turkish carriers require merchant credentials for that, and scraping their sites would be fragile and against their terms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country`	No	Destination or origin country hint, e.g. "TR". Narrows the candidates.
`trackingNumber`	Yes	Tracking number, with or without spaces and dashes.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: checksum verification (fully for S10, not-verified otherwise), ranked list for Turkish carriers, and explicit out-of-scope (delivery status). Rationale given for design decisions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the main purpose and then explains nuances. Could be slightly tighter, but still efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (canonical link, ranked list, verification status) and covers edge cases, limitations, and rationale. Complete for the intended use.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds context: country hint narrows candidates, tracking number accepts spaces/dashes. It also explains behavioral implications (ranked list) beyond parameter definitions.

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 it identifies carrier, validates tracking number, and returns canonical tracking link. The verb 'identifies' and specific resource 'carrier for tracking number' are precise, and the tool is distinct from siblings which are other validation/address tools.

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 explains when to use (order systems routing customers) and provides context about limitations (Turkish carriers overlapping, ranked list). No explicit alternatives mentioned, but siblings are other domains, so the guidance is clear.

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

All Temsor API — Turkey & EU business data 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., bic_validate vs vin_validate), but there is notable overlap: tr_validate bundles Turkish validations that are also covered individually by iban_validate and tin_validate. Also, lei_validate and lei_lookup are closely related but distinct enough. Overall, agents can usually pick the right tool, but a few pairs could confuse.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case with predominately verb_noun patterns (e.g., validate, lookup, screen, parse, build). Some nouns like mcp_index, model_archive, and series_history break the verb pattern but are still predictable. Minor deviations from the noun_verb form (tr_invoice_build, shipping_identify) don't cause confusion. Very readable and consistent overall.

Tool Count3/5

With 27 tools, the set is heavy, exceeding the typical 3–15 well-scoped range. However, the server covers a broad domain: international standards validation, Turkey-specific business data (fuel, labor, invoices, addresses), and even MCP/LLM model archives. The count is justifiable given the scope, but it stretches coherence and may overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for the stated Turkey & EU business data purpose: validators for most ID types, VAT, IBAN, phone, VIN, sanctions; plus Turkey-specific operations like invoice build/parse, labor calculations, fuel prices, business days, and address parsing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general exchange-rate conversion, no credit-note-specific builder), but agents can accomplish core workflows without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?