Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Deftship MCP Server

Deftship MCP Server

by Kodeas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get carrier status

deftship_get_carrier_status
Read-only

Check the real-time operational status of any supported carrier to identify outages or degraded service before shipping.

Instructions

Check the current operational status of a carrier (e.g. known outages or degraded service).

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": {
      "carrier": "<carrier>"
    },
    "name": "deftship_get_carrier_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
carrierYesCarrier slug, e.g. 'ups', 'fedex', 'usps'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the nature of the status (outages/degraded service), which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence with verb and object, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is sufficient. It could mention the expected response format, but given no output schema, it is adequate.

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 the parameter 'carrier' has a clear description. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks current operational status of a carrier, with examples (outages, degraded service). It is distinct from sibling tools which handle entity creation or retrieval.

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 implies use for carrier health checks, and the sibling list shows this is unique. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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