Skip to main content
Glama
Anandb71

CargoMind MCP Server

by Anandb71
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

shipment_history

Retrieve the full chronological event trail for a shipment, including scans, checkpoints, delays, and assignments, to track its status and history.

Instructions

Full chronological event trail (scans, checkpoints, delays, assignments) for one shipment.

Args:
    shipment_id: Shipment ID such as "SHP-1003".

Returns:
    {"status": "ok", "shipment_id": ..., "events": [{ts, status, city, note, source}, ...]}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shipment_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the semantic content of the response and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about ordering guarantees, pagination or result caps for long trails, or any permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a history endpoint.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded with the key scope words, and the Args/Returns blocks are terse and scannable. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the input format, and a sample response, so it is largely self-sufficient. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on result size or paging for long event trails.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate and it does: it gives the expected ID format example ("SHP-1003"), which the bare string schema does not. Only one parameter exists and no additional qualifiers (date range, filters) are hinted at.

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 resource and scope: a full chronological event trail (scans, checkpoints, delays, assignments) for one shipment. This clearly differs from a current-status tool like track_shipment, but the description never names or contrasts with any sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied by the words 'full chronological event trail', which suggests historical/audit retrieval versus a live-tracking sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools