Skip to main content
Glama

warp-agent-mcp

by io.github.warpfreight

Summarise Shipping History

analytics
Read-only

Summarise your own shipping history: how many shipments, what you spent, and the split by mode, status and lane over a window. Aggregates the same bookings list_bookings returns, so an agent gets the answer in one call instead of pulling the list and adding it up. 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to re-establish safety, but it adds useful behavior: auth required, only the caller's own bookings are summarized, and the data source is exactly list_bookings. It stops short of describing pagination or the exact response shape, but is substantially more transparent than the structured fields alone.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The minor deduction comes from 'over a window,' which is vague and could imply a date-range parameter that does not actually exist.

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 does a good job of stating what the caller gets, including counts, spend, and mode/status/lane splits. The undefined 'window' and absence of any note on the returned shape keep it just short of fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and both limit and group_by have clear descriptions, including the important detail that group_by only orders the response while all three breakdowns are returned. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 action ('Summarise your own shipping history') and enumerates the exact output dimensions: shipment count, spend, and splits by mode, status, and lane. It explicitly ties the tool to list_bookings, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lane_history, quote_history, or status.

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 explicitly frames this tool as the one-call alternative to pulling the list via list_bookings and aggregating manually. The restriction to 'your own shipping history' also communicates a clear scope boundary, helping an agent decide when this tool applies.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools like batch_quote, compare_modes, and per-mode quote tools are clearly differentiated by their scope and use cases. Batch vs single booking are also distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., batch_quote, list_bookings). A few like 'analytics' and 'events' are noun-only but still clear. Overall consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count4/5

26 tools cover a broad logistics domain including quoting, booking, tracking, documents, and account management. While slightly heavy, each tool serves a specific function and the count is reasonable for the scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool set appears complete for freight operations: all major modes quoted, single/batch/multi-stop booking, tracking, documents, invoices, history, and account management. No obvious missing CRUD operations.

Resources