Get the current status and event history for a single package. Auto-detects the carrier from the tracking number; pass carrier explicitly if detection is ambiguous. Returns structured events with timestamp, status, and location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrier | No | Optional override: 'usps' | 'ups' | 'fedex' | 'dhl' | 'india_post' | 'delhivery' | 'bluedart' | 'aramex'. | |
| tracking_number | Yes | The tracking number, spaces/dashes ignored. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses auto-detection of carrier and return format (structured events with timestamp, status, location). Could mention rate limits or error handling, but adequate for this 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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with main purpose. Every clause adds information.
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 tracking tool, description covers all needed points: input (tracking number, optional carrier), behavior (auto-detection), output (events with timestamp, status, location). No output schema but description compensates.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds value: 'spaces/dashes ignored' for tracking_number, and 'pass carrier explicitly if detection is ambiguous'. These go beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb (get) and resource (status and event history for a single package). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'single package' vs. multiple tracking, and mentions auto-detection which differentiates from detect_carrier and list_carriers.
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?
Tells when to explicitly pass carrier (if detection ambiguous). Implicitly guides to use track_package for single package vs. track_multiple. Does not explicitly state when NOT to use, but context is sufficient.
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.