machship-mcp

Get Locations (Exact Match)

machship_get_locations_exact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Looks up locations by exact suburb and postcode matches, supporting multiple suburb/postcode pairs in a single request.

Instructions

Returns locations that exactly match provided suburb/postcode combinations. Supports multiple location lookups in one call.

Args:

locations (array): Array of suburb/postcode pairs to look up exactly

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locations`	Yes	Suburb/postcode pairs for exact matching

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

removedInput schema / properties / locations / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds that lookups are exact-match only and can be batched, but says nothing about behavior when a pair yields no match, partial matches, or result ordering/limits.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose, and the Args block is brief. The Args block largely duplicates the schema and could be dropped, but nothing is verbose or buried.

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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition is adequate for a simple read tool. It still leaves gaps an agent would care about: what an empty result means, whether matching is case-sensitive, and when to prefer the search or with-options 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% and the nested suburb/postcode fields are individually documented, so the schema carries the burden. The description's Args section merely restates the array-of-pairs shape without adding format rules (e.g., postcode string normalization, case sensitivity of suburb names).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns locations') plus a discriminating qualifier ('exactly match provided suburb/postcode combinations'), which separates it from fuzzy-search siblings. It does not name machship_search_locations or machship_get_locations_with_options, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'exact match' wording implies the tool should be used when suburb and postcode are already known precisely, and 'supports multiple location lookups in one call' hints at batching. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to the sibling location tools, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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

Deploy Server