Skip to main content
Glama
MSPbotsAI

ingrammicro-mcp

by MSPbotsAI

ingrammicro_create_return

Destructive

Create return (RMA) requests for invoiced products by providing invoice details, quantity, reasons, box count, and ship-from address. Confirm before filing, as returns cannot be undone.

Instructions

File one or more return (RMA) requests against already-invoiced product. Each entry needs the original invoice, a quantity, primary/secondary reason, box count, and a full ship-from address — Ingram rejects a request missing any of those. Confirm with a human before filing; a filed return cannot be un-filed through this API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
returnsYesReturn line requests: [{"invoiceNumber" (required), "invoiceDate" (required, YYYY-MM-DD), "customerOrderNumber", "ingramPartNumber", "vendorPartNumber", "serialNumber", "quantity" (required), "primaryReason" (required), "secondaryReason" (required), "notes", "referenceNumber", "billToAddressId", "numberOfBoxes" (required), "shipFromInfo" (required): [{"companyName", "contact", "addressLine1", "city", "state", "postalCode", "countryCode", "email" — all required, "addressLine2/3", "phoneNumber" optional}]}].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Install Server

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that a filed return cannot be un-filed through this API, explicitly explaining the destructive consequence. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first, followed by required fields and a critical warning. No wasted words; every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 destructive creation operation, the description covers prerequisites, field requirements, rejection behavior, and irreversibility. An expected output schema exists (though not shown), so return details need not be described. Minor omission: no mention of response format or any operation-specific rate limits, but these are less critical given the output schema and basic usage context.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of parameters with detailed field lists and required markers. The tool description repeats the key fields and adds that missing any causes rejection, which is somewhat redundant but reinforces the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the description doesn't need to add much parameter-level detail.

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's function: filing one or more return (RMA) requests against already-invoiced product. It uses a specific verb ('file') and resource ('return requests'), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like search_returns or get_return.

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 specifies when to use the tool: against already-invoiced product, and notes that a request is rejected if required fields are missing. It also instructs to confirm with a human before filing, which is critical usage guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context strongly implies it is for creation, not lookup.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MSPbotsAI/ingrammicro-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server