Batch shipment lookup for many track & trace codes in one call (max 200). Use for carrier invoice / surcharge CSV reconciliation — never call LookupByTrackTrace per row. Returns labels, orders, and surcharges keyed by track & trace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intentId | No | Intent ID from RecordUserQuestion | |
| trackTraces | Yes | Track & trace codes (exact match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the batch cap (max 200) and the return shape (labels, orders, surcharges keyed by track & trace). It is silent on failure behavior for unknown/duplicate codes, whether results are partial, and auth requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler; the batch/scope fact, the use case, the prohibition, and the return contents are all front-loaded and non-redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes returns, and it covers the batching contract and use case. Remaining gaps (ordering of results against input, handling of unmatched codes) are minor but leave a small amount an agent could still get wrong.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema omits: the array is capped at 200 codes. The intentId parameter is left to the schema's own description, so it does not reach 5.
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?
States a specific verb (batch lookup), resource (shipment by track & trace codes), and scope (many codes in one call, max 200). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling LookupByTrackTrace, which it names.
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?
Gives an explicit when ('carrier invoice / surcharge CSV reconciliation') and an explicit anti-pattern ('never call LookupByTrackTrace per row'), routing the agent to the correct tool with no inference required.
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.
