SiteCheck Trade & Energy

International postal tracking number check: validates

logistics_postal_upn_tracking

Read-only

International postal tracking number check (UPU S10 format, e.g. RR123456785GB): validates the 8-digit serial with the S10 check digit, decodes the service type from the first letter (EMS, registered, parcel, insured...), names the origin postal country from the last two letters, and returns tracking links (origin post and multi-carrier trackers). It does not read the item's live scan history. Related tools on this server, for a different need: logistics_container_tracking when you need shipping container number check: validates an ISO 6346. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_postal_upn_tracking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	Yes	S10 number: 2 letters, 9 digits, 2-letter country code, e.g. RR123456785GB

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`number`	No
`serial`	No
`source`	No
`service`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`checkDigit`	No
`originCountry`	No
`trackingLinks`	No
`checkDigitValid`	No
`serviceIndicator`	No
`originCountryCode`	No
`expectedCheckDigit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the pricing model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), that failed calls are not charged, that it returns tracking links from origin post and multi-carrier trackers, and that it is not a live-scan history lookup. Cost and billing-failure behavior are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 capability statement is front-loaded and every clause carries information (format, decoded fields, returns, explicit exclusion). The only mild weakness is density — the first sentence chains several clauses and the pricing tail ends the description rather than being visually separated, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return shapes, yet it still summarizes the returned tracking links. Combined with full parameter coverage, clear exclusions, an alternative tool pointer, and explicit billing terms, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents the 2-letters/9-digits/2-letter-country format. The description reinforces the format with a worked example but adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (validates an international postal tracking number), specifies the UPU S10 format with an example, enumerates exactly what is derived (check digit, service type, origin country, tracking links), and explicitly bounds scope with 'It does not read the item's live scan history.' It also points to the sibling it is not for a different need, so an agent can separate it from logistics_container_tracking without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states both when to use it (S10-format postal numbers, e.g. RR123456785GB) and when not to (no live scan history), and names the alternative logistics_container_tracking with the exact condition that selects it (ISO 6346 container numbers). This is explicit routing rather than implied usage.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy 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?