Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
logistics-mcp

logistics-mcp

by Azzaraell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

track_shipment

Track a shipment by its number to view the public timeline of events visible to the recipient, answering 'where is my package' queries.

Instructions

Public tracking timeline for a shipment: the subset of events a recipient would see, without internal ops notes. Use this when the question is 'where is my package'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sp_number": "<sp_number>"
    },
    "name": "track_shipment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sp_numberYesShipment number, e.g. SBY-1042

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'public tracking timeline' and is a subset of events, implying it is read-only and safe. However, it lacks details about potential errors, rate limits, or whether authentication is needed. For a simple tracking tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is two sentences (30 words) with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and usage. Perfectly concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and what kind of data it returns (public events timeline). However, it does not specify the return structure (e.g., list of events), which could be inferred but is not explicit.

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?

There is one parameter (sp_number) with 100% schema coverage (pattern and description provided). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it provides a 'public tracking timeline' – a subset of events a recipient would see. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_shipment (full shipment details) and search_shipments (search functionality). However, it could be more explicit about differentiation from get_shipment.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this when the question is "where is my package."' This gives clear guidance on when to use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear for its intended purpose.

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