machship-mcp

Get Linked-To Organisations

machship_get_linked_to_organisations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all organisations linked to a Machship organisation, including customers and subsidiaries, with optional pagination, sorting, and name filtering.

Instructions

Returns all organisations this organisation has linked TO (customers, subsidiaries).

Args:

startIndex (number, optional): Pagination start index
retrieveSize (number, optional): Number to retrieve
sort (string, optional): Sort field
searchText (string, optional): Filter by name

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "machship_get_linked_to_organisations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Sort field name
`searchText`	No	Filter results by organisation name
`startIndex`	No	Pagination start index
`retrieveSize`	No	Number of results to return (max 100)

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.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / retrieveSize / description
```
Added value: +"Number of results to return (max 100)"
```
addedInput schema / properties / searchText / description
```
Added value: +"Filter results by organisation name"
```
addedInput schema / properties / sort / description
```
Added value: +"Sort field name"
```
addedInput schema / properties / startIndex / description
```
Added value: +"Pagination start index"
```
addedInput schema / properties / startIndex / 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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the domain meaning of 'linked TO' (customers, subsidiaries); it says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, ordering, or whether the link set spans the whole organisation hierarchy.

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 efficient and front-loaded, but the four-line Args block duplicates information already present in the input schema with zero added value, making the definition longer than it needs to be.

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, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a tool sitting in a cluster of near-identically named organisation-link tools, the description leaves the key selection question unresolved, which is the main completeness gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the max-100 bound on retrieveSize and the minimum on startIndex. The Args block merely restates the schema and adds no syntax, default values, or filtering semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 with a directional qualifier: organisations this organisation has linked TO, exemplified as customers and subsidiaries. That direction distinguishes it in principle from machship_get_linked_from_organisations, but the description never names that sibling or machship_get_organisation_links, so the discrimination must be inferred from the wording alone.

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. With four closely related siblings (get_linked_from_organisations, get_organisation_links, add_organisation_link, remove_organisation_link) in the same domain, an agent gets no explicit routing rule for choosing this read tool over the alternative link-listing tool.

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

Deploy Server