Skip to main content
Glama

warp-agent-mcp

by io.github.warpfreight
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Summarise Shipping History

analytics
Read-only

Summarise your own shipping history: how many bookings, what you spent, and the split by mode, status and lane over a window. Both the headline count and every breakdown are computed from ONE population — your bookings via the agent API (warp-site /bookings) — so the total always matches the splits. Auth required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many of your most recent bookings to summarise (default 100, max 500)
group_byNoWhich breakdown to lead with. All three are returned regardless; this only orders the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / group_by
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which breakdown to lead with. All three are returned regardless; this only orders the response.",
+  "enum": [
+    "mode",
+    "status",
+    "lane"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How many of your most recent bookings to summarise (default 100, max 500)",
+  "maximum": 500,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the auth requirement, the single upstream population (agent API /bookings), and the guarantee that the headline total reconciles with every breakdown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is summarised and immediately followed by the reconciliation guarantee. 'Auth required.' is terse but earns its place as a call prerequisite.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description adequately names what comes back (count, spend, three breakdowns) and the scoping population. Only minor gaps remain, such as the response shape for each breakdown and how limit truncation affects the figures.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit and group_by are already fully documented, including the default/max and the fact that group_by only orders the response. The description's 'over a window' and 'split by mode, status and lane' loosely echo those parameters but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (summarise) and resource (your own shipping history) and enumerates the outputs: booking count, spend, and splits by mode, status and lane. This clearly separates it in kind from listing siblings like list_bookings or lane_history, though no sibling is named outright.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the aggregate/summary counterpart to the raw list tools, and 'over a window' hints at the recency scope. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named.

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

All warp-agent-mcp toolsInspect
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