Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get MO41 Document PDF

machship_get_mo41_document_pdf
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the MO41 compliance document PDF for a consignment by ID, returning file data, content type, and size for carrier-specific requirements.

Instructions

Returns the MO41 document PDF for a consignment (used for specific carrier compliance documents). Returns { fileBase64, contentType, sizeBytes }. contentType comes from the response header.

Args:

  • consignmentId (number): Consignment ID

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
consignmentIdYesConsignment 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 / consignmentId / 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and an output schema exists, so restating the { fileBase64, contentType, sizeBytes } shape is largely redundant. The one genuinely additive note is that contentType is sourced from the response header, but nothing is said about failure when no MO41 exists or about payload size concerns for base64 content.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence and short overall. The Args block duplicates the schema verbatim, which is dead weight, but the rest is efficient.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, applicability, and return shape. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the _file_info and dangerous goods PDF siblings, which the agent is left to infer.

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 description merely repeats 'consignmentId (number): Consignment ID' with no added meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the single parameter.

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 ('Returns the MO41 document PDF for a consignment') plus a qualifier on when this document type applies. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling machship_get_mo41_document_pdf_file_info, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to call.

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 parenthetical 'used for specific carrier compliance documents' gives some context on applicability, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the file_info sibling that returns metadata rather than the PDF itself. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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