Compare parcel and letter delivery prices across 60+ carriers in 27 European countries — live rates by weight, dimensions, origin, and destination.
PackZoo is a hosted, remote MCP server. Clients with native streamable-http support can connect directly; this repo also ships a thin stdio proxy for clients that only support local/stdio MCP servers.
https://packzoo.com/api/mcpSee server.json for the full MCP registry manifest.
Related MCP server: 24htrack-mcp
npx github:IAfanasov/packzoo-mcpsrc/index.js is a small stdio<->streamable-http bridge: it connects to
https://packzoo.com/api/mcp, forwards tools/list and tools/call over
stdio. Point your MCP client's config at this command for clients without
native remote-server support.
compare_shipping_pricesCompare shipping prices across carriers for a given package and route.
Parameter | Type | Description |
| string | Origin country ISO code |
| string | Destination country ISO code (ISO 3166-1) |
| number | Package weight in kilograms |
| number | Longest side, in centimetres |
| number | Middle side, in centimetres |
| number | Shortest side, in centimetres |
Website: https://packzoo.com
REST API: https://packzoo.com/api/prices
OpenAPI spec: https://packzoo.com/openapi.json
Agent guide: https://packzoo.com/AGENTS.md
llms.txt: https://packzoo.com/llms.txt
MCP registry entry: io.github.IAfanasov/packzoo
Countries: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK.
MIT — see LICENSE.
Compare shipping prices across carriers for a given package and route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width_cm | Yes | Middle side of the package in centimetres | |
| height_cm | Yes | Shortest side of the package in centimetres | |
| length_cm | Yes | Longest side of the package in centimetres | |
| weight_kg | Yes | Package weight in kilograms | |
| to_country | Yes | Destination country ISO code (any ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code) | |
| from_country | Yes | Origin country ISO code. Supported: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is brief and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, destructive, or has authentication needs. With no annotations present, the description fails to compensate for this gap.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous information. It is concise and directly states the tool's function without any waste.
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?
Given the tool has six required parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, how results are presented, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond summarizing the tool's purpose, earning the baseline score of 3.
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?
The description clearly states the tool compares shipping prices across carriers, specifying the verb 'compare' and the resource. It also mentions inputs (package and route) sufficiently distinguishing its purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no sibling tools listed, but the description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0compare_shipping_pricesScored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is clear and distinct.
The tool name 'compare_shipping_prices' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and descriptive. There are no other tools to conflict.
With only one tool, the server feels overly minimal. While a focused price comparison service could justify a single tool, users typically expect additional related operations (e.g., carrier list, package validation) making this count too low for practical use.
The server only offers a single price comparison operation. It lacks supporting tools for managing carriers, packages, or viewing historical data, leaving significant gaps for any realistic shipping workflow.
Compare parcel and letter delivery prices across 60+ carriers in 27 European countries.
Track parcels across 2,500+ carriers and 3PLs: live delivery status, event history, carrier lookup.
Send real, printed letters by post across Europe. Requires a free account; quote before sending.
Track packages across 1,300+ global carriers with real-time status and AI-powered delivery dates.
