machship-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to machship-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceEnables AI clients to quote, ship, track, void, and manage shipments via the Deftship multi-carrier shipping API using natural language commands.327 npmMIT

Easyship MCPofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to manage global shipping operations, including rate comparison, shipment creation, label purchasing, tracking, pickup scheduling, address validation, billing, and analytics, via natural language.32 npmMIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to track packages, rate and create shipments, manage pickups and customs documentation, and perform international shipping logistics checks through natural language.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables autonomous multi-agent logistics operations through MCP tools, resources, and prompts for routing, inventory, cargo inspection, disruption recovery, and conversational dispatch. It supports both modern and legacy MCP specs over stdio and HTTP, including secure API and feedback-optimized workflows.51MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants in Cursor and other MCP hosts to connect to a company REST API, handling token-based authentication, read-only lookups, and guarded job/package creation with optional shipping labels.16 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible applications to interact with local and cloud-hosted LLM models for model management, text generation, chat, embeddings, and web search/fetch.897 npmAGPL 3.0
TDQS
Scored across 125 tools
Several tool pairs are functionally near-duplicates: the PDF getters exist in two flavours (e.g. machship_get_consignment_label_pdf vs machship_get_consignment_pdf_file_info, same for item, manifest, dangerous goods and MO41), and machship_get_item_labels_zip vs machship_return_item_pdfs_for_consignments is explicitly the same operation with a different payload style. Search surfaces also overlap heavily: machship_search_consignments versus the three machship_get_consignments_by_reference1/reference2/carrier_id tools, and machship_search_locations vs machship_get_locations_exact vs machship_get_locations_with_options. On top of that, machship_create_quote and machship_get_routes both return carrier rate options, making selection genuinely uncertain.
Almost every tool follows a predictable machship_verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, create_, update_, delete_, group_, upload_). Minor deviations exist: machship_ping has no verb_noun form, 'edit' is used alongside 'update' (machship_edit_consignment, machship_edit_company_location vs machship_update_custom_schema, machship_update_despatch_dates), and 'return' is used inconsistently (machship_return_identity_public_keys, machship_return_item_pdfs_for_consignments). These are small blemishes rather than a broken convention.
125 tools for a single server is far past any reasonable agent-facing surface; selection cost and misselection risk dominate. A meaningful chunk of that count is redundant (duplicated PDF variants, POST-vs-GET duplicates, three location search variants), so the surface could be halved without losing capability. Even for a broad TMS domain, this is an extreme overload.
Coverage across the freight lifecycle is genuinely deep: consignments (create/edit/delete/search/statuses/despatch dates), pending consignments, quoting and route shopping, manifests and rebooking, labels/PODs/commercial invoices, attachments, items, locations, identities/roles, organisation links, custom schemas and carrier invoice reconciliation. The main gaps are around items (there is create_item_complex and delete_item but no standard create_item and no update/edit item) and no manifest cancellation operation. These are minor and workable rather than blocking.