LogiSwarm AI MCP Server

get_fleet_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve telematics, current locations, payloads, and status for all fleet vehicles, with optional full route stops.

Instructions

Returns telematics, current locations, payloads, and status of all fleet vehicles.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_fleet_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include_routes`	No	Whether to include full route stops

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`metrics`	No
`vehicles`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety semantics are covered. The description usefully discloses the breadth of the returned payload (telematics, current locations, payloads, status) and implies route detail is available via include_routes, but it says nothing about result size, freshness/latency, or pagination for a whole-fleet query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the returned data enumerated; there is no filler and nothing redundant against the structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the sole parameter is documented in the schema. The description covers what the tool reads and its fleet-wide scope, leaving only usage-routing guidance as a gap.

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 description coverage is 100%: include_routes is fully documented in the schema as controlling whether full route stops are returned. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Returns ... status of all fleet vehicles') and enumerates the payload content (telematics, locations, payloads, status), which is concrete. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as inspect_cargo_multimodal, so an agent still has to infer scope boundaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool. The phrase 'all fleet vehicles' hints at whole-fleet scope, but this is only implied rather than stated as a selection criterion.

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

Deploy Server