Deftship MCP Server

Create a support ticket

deftship_create_ticket

Open a support ticket for existing shipments by tracking number, specifying ticket type, reference, and message. Some ticket types have a fee.

Instructions

Open a support ticket against existing shipments (e.g. a claim or issue) by tracking number. Some ticket types carry a fee. Provide ticket_type_id, a reference, a message and the related tracking numbers.

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": {
      "ticket_type_id": "<ticket_type_id>",
      "reference": "<reference>",
      "message": "<message>",
      "tracking_numbers": "<tracking_numbers>"
    },
    "name": "deftship_create_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`files`	No	Optional related file references.
`message`	Yes	The ticket message.
`reference`	Yes	A reference for the ticket.
`ticket_type_id`	Yes	The ticket type id.
`tracking_numbers`	Yes	Related tracking numbers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that some ticket types carry a fee, which is useful behavioral info. But it does not disclose other potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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, no unnecessary words. First sentence explains purpose, second gives usage hint. Very efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. It covers purpose and inputs adequately but omits response behavior.

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%, so the description adds little beyond restating the required parameters. It does not provide additional meaning or usage hints for each parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the action (open a support ticket), the target (existing shipments), and the method (by tracking number). It gives examples like 'claim or issue', distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle shipping, batches, etc.

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?

The description tells what to provide (ticket_type_id, reference, message, tracking_numbers) and mentions that some ticket types carry a fee. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server