machship-mcp

Create Company Location

machship_create_company_location

Creates a new company location such as a warehouse, store, or depot pickup point using supplied address and contact details.

Instructions

Creates a new company location (warehouse, store, depot pickup point).

Args:

location (object): Location data including companyId, name, address, suburb, postcode, state, country, contactName, phone, etc.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`location`	Yes	Location data (companyId, name, address, suburb, postcode, state, country, contactName, phone)

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 / location / 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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no note on duplicate-location behavior, required permissions, validation failures, or what the response contains — so beyond the annotations it contributes almost no behavioral context.

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?

Two short parts: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; there is no filler. The only minor inefficiency is that the Args block duplicates the schema almost verbatim rather than adding information.

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 takes a nested free-form object (additionalProperties: {}) plus a required companyId, so an agent needs to know which sub-fields are mandatory and which formats are accepted; the description gives none of that. It is helped by having an output schema and full annotation coverage, but the unstructured nested payload remains under-explained.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already lists companyId, name, address, suburb, postcode, state, country, contactName, phone. The description's Args block largely restates that same field list, adding the 'etc.' hint that other fields exist but no format, required-vs-optional, or nesting guidance — baseline 3 is the right ceiling.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Creates a new company location') and adds concrete examples of what a location is (warehouse, store, depot pickup point), which helps an agent disambiguate from 'search_locations' or location lookups. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling mutations 'edit_company_location' or 'get_company_location', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says this is for net-new locations only versus using 'machship_edit_company_location' for existing ones, and no prerequisites (such as requiring a valid companyId) are mentioned. The create-vs-edit distinction is only implied by the tool name.

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

Deploy Server