Batch tracking. Provide up to 25 tracking numbers; auto-detects each carrier and returns results in the same order. Slower entries are not retried within the batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracking_numbers | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auto-detection of carriers, same-order results, and that slower entries are not retried within the batch. This covers key behavioral traits for a batch tool.
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?
Three short, clear sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with 'Batch tracking' and immediately provides key limits and behaviors.
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 single-parameter tool without output schema, description is sufficiently complete. It covers input limits, processing behavior, and output ordering. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or empty list case.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, description adds meaning: batch limit of 25, auto-detection, ordering. Schema only defines type and maxItems; description enriches with behavioral context.
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 tool name and description clearly indicate batch tracking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like track_package (single) and detect_carrier (carrier detection only). The verb 'batch tracking' plus specifics (up to 25 numbers, auto-detect carrier, same order) make purpose unambiguous.
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?
Description implies use for batch tracking but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over track_package or detect_carrier. It mentions limits and behavior but lacks explicit 'use this when' guidance.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: carrier identification, listing supported carriers, batch tracking, and single package tracking. There is no ambiguity in their roles.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (detect_carrier, list_carriers, track_multiple, track_package), making them predictable.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a tracking server, covering the essential operations without superfluous or missing functionality.
The tool set covers carrier detection, listing, single tracking, and batch tracking. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to validate tracking number format against a carrier, but the core workflows are complete.