machship-mcp

Create Consignment

machship_create_consignment

Creates a new unmanifested consignment in Machship to book freight, requiring locations, items with weight and dimensions, and carrier service details for shipment creation.

Instructions

Creates a new unmanifested consignment in Machship. This is the core operation for booking freight.

Args:

consignment (object): Full consignment details including:
- companyId, fromCompanyLocationId, toAddress (suburb, postcode, state, country)
- items (array of packages with weight, dimensions)
- carrierId, serviceId, reference1, reference2, etc.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`consignment`	Yes	Consignment data (companyId, from/to locations, items, carrier, service, references)

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 / consignment / 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 readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful state detail that the resulting consignment is 'unmanifested', but omits what happens on success (does it book with the carrier?), whether duplicates are created on retry (relevant given idempotentHint=false), and any required permissions or validation failures.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and purpose, then a compact structured Args breakdown. No redundant sentences; the 'core operation for booking freight' line earns its place as orientation. The trailing 'etc.' is the only weak spot.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a high-stakes nested-payload creation tool with no field-level schema enforcement, the description gives an incomplete field inventory and says nothing about required nested fields, validation behavior, or what 'unmanifested' implies for follow-up steps (manifesting).

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 nominally 100%, but the schema only describes a single untyped object with additionalProperties, so it conveys almost no field-level meaning. The description compensates by enumerating key fields (companyId, fromCompanyLocationId, toAddress with suburb/postcode/state/country, items with weight and dimensions, carrierId, serviceId, reference1/reference2), which is genuinely useful, but it ends with 'etc.' and never marks which nested fields are required. Baseline 3 reflects that this partially, not fully, documents a free-form nested payload.

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 specific verb and resource ('Creates a new unmanifested consignment in Machship') plus the business purpose ('core operation for booking freight'). The 'unmanifested' qualifier and the mention of inline 'items (array of packages)' implicitly separate it from create_consignment_existing_items and create_consignment_with_complex_items, but those siblings are never named, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, despite three closely related create variants in the sibling list. 'This is the core operation for booking freight' provides context for the tool's role but does not tell an agent when to pick this over the complex-items or existing-items variants.

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

Deploy Server