GELATO.cz

create_delivery_address

Create a delivery address (place of business) for this customer — required once before the first order, exactly as the web shop asks right after registration. Minimum: city, zip, house number, a contact surname and a phone for the carrier; street may be empty in villages without street names. Leave the address fields empty to deliver to the registered company address from ARES (city, zip, street and house number are then copied from the account). Input is tidied automatically (phone prefix, zip spacing); only what cannot be fixed is refused. Payment terms of the address follow the customer account; the payment of a particular order is chosen in place_order. Returns delivery_address_id for checkout_preview and place_order.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contact_surname": "<contact_surname>",
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "create_delivery_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No	PSČ, 5 digits for CZ/SK
`city`	No
`email`	No	E-mail of the delivery place only when it differs from the account e-mail
`phone`	Yes	Phone for the carrier, e.g. "+420 724 230 861"
`phone2`	No	Second phone (site manager), optional
`street`	No
`place_name`	No	Name of the shop / production site, defaults to the company name
`house_number`	No	Číslo popisné, e.g. "1973" or "3294/10"
`contact_surname`	Yes	Who receives the goods — printed for the carrier
`contact_first_name`	No
`delivery_method_id`	No	Default transport for this address; TOPTRANS courier when omitted
`orientation_number`	No	Číslo orientační, optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false supplied, the description carries real weight: it discloses that input is auto-normalized (phone prefix, zip spacing), that only unfixable values are refused, that omitted fields fall back to the ARES company address, and that it returns delivery_address_id. These are behaviors an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose before the operational detail, and nearly every sentence carries non-redundant information. It is one dense block, though, and the ARES fallback rule is buried mid-paragraph rather than surfaced as its own clause.

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?

A 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema is fully covered: prerequisites, required minimums, conditional fallbacks, normalization behavior, and the returned identifier are all stated. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 75%, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: a conditional minimum set (city, zip, house number plus contact surname and phone), the fact that street may legitimately be empty, and the all-empty case that copies values from the account. It does not add anything about delivery_method_id's enum or the optional second-phone/place-name fields, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a delivery address") plus the scope ("for this customer", "place of business"), and ties it to the sibling tools checkout_preview and place_order. An agent can distinguish it from list_delivery_addresses and the cart/order tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ("required once before the first order, exactly as the web shop asks right after registration") and an explicit boundary that payment selection belongs to place_order, not here. It stops short of telling the agent to check list_delivery_addresses first to avoid duplicates, which is the one obvious competing path left implicit.

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

All GELATO.cz tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?