track_shipmentTracks the current status and event history of a shipment by tracking number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Courier that created the shipment ('andreani', 'oca'). | |
| trackingNumber | Yes | Tracking number returned by the courier at shipment creation time. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns both current status and event history, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'tracks'. It contains no redundancy or filler words, making every word earn its place.
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 2-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and expected output content (status and event history). It doesn't describe return format in detail, but the annotations and schema cover the essential safety and parameter context, so it is reasonably complete.
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%, with both 'provider' and 'trackingNumber' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or syntax details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specifies the verb 'tracks', the resource 'shipment', and the scope ('current status and event history by tracking number'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote_shipping or get_package_profile, which focus on quoting or package profiles rather than tracking.
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 clearly implies usage when you have a tracking number and need shipment status, which is sufficient context for the agent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Several tools duplicate the same underlying data in different presentation modes (get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, query_catalog vs open_catalog_selector, connection_status vs open_onboarding), creating ambiguity. Descriptions mention 'widget' vs JSON but an agent could easily pick the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names mix Spanish and English (caja_consultar_saldo vs validate_cuit) and use varying verb prefixes (open_, query_, get_, list_, find_, track_, quote_, validate_); only the open_ prefix is consistent.
22 tools sits at the high end of the borderline range; the server covers multiple domains (catalog, shipping, payments, fiscal) which justifies many tools, but some widgets and query equivalents could be consolidated.
The surface is heavily read-only: there are no create/update/delete tools for customers, suppliers, or products, and the only way to register a sale is through a widget that fires an internal function. There are also no tools to actually create a payment link or charge, leaving transactional workflows incomplete.