machship-mcp

Add Organisation Link

machship_add_organisation_link

Links a partner organisation to your Machship account using their public key, enabling shared freight workflows with optional configuration.

Instructions

Links another organisation into yours using their public key.

Args:

request (object): Link request with the partner's publicKey and optional configuration

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Link request (publicKey of partner organisation)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No	Validation errors returned by Machship, if any
`object`	No	Response payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / request / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds that the link is established via a partner public key and accepts some configuration, but it never says what happens on a repeat call (non-idempotent), what is required on the partner side, or whether an existing link errors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and complete. The "Args:" block largely restates the schema description and could be dropped, but it is short and does not bury the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the mutation annotations cover safety hints. Still, for an open-world, non-idempotent mutation, the description omits the prerequisite key-exchange step and duplicate-link behaviour, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the single param is documented as "Link request (publicKey of partner organisation)", so the schema already carries the load and baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of "optional configuration" hints at fields beyond the loosely typed additionalProperties object, which is a small value-add but leaves the shape undefined.

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?

"Links another organisation into yours using their public key" gives a specific verb (link) and resource (organisation) plus the mechanism (public key). It is clearly distinguishable from read siblings like machship_get_organisation_links, but it does not name its obvious inverse, machship_remove_organisation_link, which would have sharpened the routing.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no stated prerequisites, such as needing the partner to supply their public key first (likely via machship_get_organisation_public_key) or needing link permissions. The agent must infer everything about the situation that calls for this tool versus the get/link-listing siblings.

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

Deploy Server