machship-mcp

Get Completed Consignments

machship_get_completed_consignments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve completed (delivered) consignments for a company within an ISO date range, optionally including child companies, to audit deliveries or reconcile freight shipments.

Instructions

Returns completed (delivered) consignments within a date range (max 2000 results).

Args:

companyId (number): Company ID
startDate (string): Start date (ISO 8601)
endDate (string): End date (ISO 8601)
includeChildCompanies (boolean, optional): Include sub-companies

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endDate`	Yes	End date (ISO 8601)
`companyId`	Yes	Company ID
`startDate`	Yes	Start date (ISO 8601)
`includeChildCompanies`	No	Include consignments from child companies

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / companyId / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
addedInput schema / properties / includeChildCompanies / description
```
Added value: +"Include consignments from child companies"
```

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, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the structured data: a hard cap of max 2000 results. It says nothing about whether results are truncated versus erroring at the cap, ordering, or date-range edge semantics, so credit is limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, correctly establishing purpose and result cap. However, the four-line Args block duplicates the input schema word-for-word and consumes roughly two-thirds of the text without adding information, which is filler rather than earned content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values or safety. It states the resource, the date-range scoping, and the 2000-result ceiling, which is enough for correct invocation. The remaining minor gap is the absence of any disambiguation from the many other consignment-listing siblings.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The Args block simply restates each schema description verbatim (including 'ISO 8601'), adding no format examples, timezone handling, date inclusivity, or guidance on includeChildCompanies. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work and the description adds nothing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns completed (delivered) consignments') and adds scope ('within a date range'), which distinguishes it from status-based siblings like active or unmanifested consignment getters. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead when the agent wants all or recent consignments, so it falls short of a 5.

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 despite a crowded sibling set (get_all_consignments, get_recent_consignments, get_active_consignments, search_consignments, get_consignments_by_carrier_id). The only implicit signal is that 'completed (delivered)' implies a status filter, leaving the agent to infer selection among many near-duplicate retrieval tools.

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

Deploy Server