Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Carrier Invoice Entries

machship_get_carrier_invoice_entries
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve carrier invoice line entries by invoice ID, with optional filtering by entry status to review specific charges or reconcile a freight invoice.

Instructions

Gets carrier invoice line entries with optional status filtering.

Args:

  • carrierInvoiceId (number): The carrier invoice ID

  • status (string, optional): Filter entries by status

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "carrierInvoiceId": "<carrierInvoiceId>"
    },
    "name": "machship_get_carrier_invoice_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoFilter by entry status
carrierInvoiceIdYesCarrier invoice ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorsNoValidation errors returned by Machship, if any
objectNoResponse payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / carrierInvoiceId / 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"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on pagination, result volume, what status values exist, or what happens when the invoice has no entries – so it does not earn credit for added 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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the whole definition is short with no filler. The Args block largely duplicates the schema, which is mild waste, but the total length is appropriate for a two-parameter tool.

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 and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a subresource lookup the description gives no guidance on result size, pagination, or the valid status set, leaving a caller with an optional string filter unable to know what to pass.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form and the baseline is 3. The description merely restates them ("carrierInvoiceId: The carrier invoice ID", "status: Filter entries by status") without adding accepted status values or default behavior, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 ("Gets carrier invoice line entries") and scopes it to a single carrier invoice, which distinguishes it from the sibling machship_get_carrier_invoices that lists invoices themselves. It stops short of naming that sibling or otherwise differentiating the two explicitly, so the distinction must be inferred from the word "entries".

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 statement of when to use this versus machship_get_carrier_invoices or any reconciliation sibling, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage signal is that status filtering is optional, which describes a parameter rather than a usage decision.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools