machship-mcp

Attempt Auto Reconciliation

machship_attempt_auto_reconciliation

Attempts automatic reconciliation of carrier invoices using configured thresholds to resolve billing discrepancies without manual review.

Instructions

Attempts automatic reconciliation of carrier invoices based on configured carrier thresholds.

Args:

body (object): Reconciliation request payload (carrierInvoiceId, etc.)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Reconciliation request payload

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 / body / 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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that reconciliation depends on configured carrier thresholds and that the operation is an 'attempt,' but it does not explain what is changed, what failure modes exist, or what permissions are required.

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 description is short and front-loads the core operation before listing the single argument. The Args section is slightly mechanical but still compact and free of unrelated detail.

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?

The tool is a non-idempotent mutation with a nested request body and open-world behavior, so it benefits from annotations and the output schema. However, the description remains sparse on prerequisites, request payload structure, and operational side effects beyond mentioning configured thresholds.

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 high, but the body schema is a loosely typed object with no defined properties. The description adds a small amount of useful payload guidance by mentioning carrierInvoiceId and 'etc.', but it does not document the full reconciliation request shape.

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: attempting automatic reconciliation of carrier invoices based on configured carrier thresholds. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related invoice-retrieval siblings such as machship_get_carrier_invoices.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'based on configured carrier thresholds' implies that the tool should be used when carrier thresholds are configured, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative reconciliation or manual invoice workflow is named.

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

Deploy Server