Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fleetsync-mcp

fleetsync-mcp

by RobsonAdvincula
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fleetsync_orders_by_date

Get FleetSync orders for any date with their statuses. Query by date to view daily schedules and track order progress.

Instructions

Get all FleetSync orders for a specific date. Returns list of orders scheduled for that day with their statuses.

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": {
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "fleetsync_orders_by_date"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesDate in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. '2026-02-10')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the return behavior ('Returns list of orders scheduled for that day with their statuses') but does not mention additional traits like pagination, timezone handling, or whether cancelled/future orders are included. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but does minimally.

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, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description adequately explains the return type and scope. It could detail ordering or included fields, but for a low-complexity get tool, it is nearly complete.

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% for the single parameter 'date', and the schema fully describes format and example. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Get all FleetSync orders') and scope ('for a specific date'), which distinguishes it from siblings like fleetsync_orders_by_route and fleetsync_orders_by_route_date. The verb+resource+modifier structure is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need orders for a specific date. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to guide selection. Lacks exclusions, so not a 5.

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