machship-mcp

Delete Pending Consignments

machship_delete_pending_consignments

Destructive

Deletes one or more pending consignments using their IDs to clear unwanted draft shipments from Machship.

Instructions

Deletes one or more pending consignments.

Args:

ids (number[]): Pending consignment IDs to delete

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Pending consignment IDs to delete

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 / ids / items / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

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

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, whether a partially invalid ID list causes partial deletion, or whether related records are affected. With annotations covering the basics, this is a minimal pass but no added value.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded in one short sentence with no filler. The trailing 'Args' block is redundant with the schema, which is the only wasted content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a single-parameter bulk delete with full schema coverage, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile. The only residual gap is batch-failure semantics, which is minor for a tool this simple.

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 'ids' parameter is already documented in the schema with type, minItems and bounds. The description's 'Args' block simply repeats the schema text verbatim, adding no meaning such as a maximum batch size or behavior on unknown IDs. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Deletes ... pending consignments') and the plural scope ('one or more'). The word 'pending' implicitly distinguishes it from machship_delete_consignments, which handles non-pending consignments, but that contrast is never made explicit.

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 guidance on when to choose this over machship_delete_consignments, no prerequisites (e.g. must the consignment still be unmanifested?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer that 'pending' is the discriminator from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server