Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Organisation Details by Public Key

machship_get_organisation_by_public_key
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates an organisation's public key and returns its details, helping verify a partner before linking accounts.

Instructions

Validates a public key and returns the corresponding organisation details. Use this to verify a partner's public key before linking.

Args:

  • publicKey (string): Organisation public key to look up

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
publicKeyYesOrganisation public key

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • 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

A3.6/5.0
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful framing that the call performs validation as well as retrieval, but never says what happens when the key is invalid or unknown (error vs empty result) — the main behavioral question for a validation call. With an output schema present, missing return-shape detail is acceptable.

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 front-loaded sentences carry the substance efficiently. The trailing 'Args' section duplicates what the 100%-covered schema already says, which is minor waste but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter read with an output schema and full annotations, most structural burden is already met, so the description only needs to cover failure semantics and trust scope. It leaves both unaddressed — an openWorld call validating an external partner key would benefit from stating whether invalid keys raise an error and whether the returned details are public-safe.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents publicKey. The description's 'Args' block merely restates 'Organisation public key to look up' with no format, length, or sourcing guidance (e.g. where a partner's key comes from). 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Validates a public key and returns the corresponding organisation details'), and the lookup direction (key -> organisation) distinguishes it from the sibling machship_get_organisation_public_key, which goes the other way. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left partly to inference from the name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use this to verify a partner's public key before linking' states a concrete precondition scenario and implicitly routes the agent away from machship_add_organisation_link and machship_reset_organisation_public_key. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative, but the context is clear.

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