Check shipment delivery status for Bangladeshi couriers like Steadfast and Pathao using a tracking code or consignment ID. Enter the code to get real-time updates on parcel location and delivery progress.
Track shipment delivery status across Steadfast or Pathao using Tracking Code / Consignment ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courier | No | Optional courier name if known | |
| tracking_code | Yes | Consignment ID or tracking code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / consignmentIdRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / courier / defaultRemoved value: -"steadfast"Input schema / properties / courier / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional courier name if known"Input schema / properties / invoiceRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / trackingCodeRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / tracking_codeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Consignment ID or tracking code",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "tracking_code"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tracks delivery status but does not disclose what the response looks like, whether it supports all listed couriers equally, what happens with invalid tracking codes, or any rate limits or auth requirements. For a read-only tracking tool, this is a notable 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 that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It names the couriers and the required input. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit usage guidance.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tracking tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about the return format, error behavior, or courier-specific nuances. The description covers the core purpose but not the full context needed for robust 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 already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that tracking_code is a Consignment ID or tracking code, which matches the schema. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Track') and resource ('shipment delivery status') and names the supported couriers (Steadfast or Pathao). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_parcel and get_balance, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tracking-like tools (none exist among siblings).
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to track a shipment's delivery status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list (create_parcel, get_balance, etc.) makes the context reasonably clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.