Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Pending Consignments by Reference 2

machship_get_pending_consignments_by_reference2
Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds pending consignments by matching up to 10 Reference 2 values, helping you locate shipments awaiting processing through a secondary reference.

Instructions

Finds pending consignments by Reference 2 field. Max 10 per request.

Args:

  • references (string[]): Reference 2 values (max 10)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "references": "<references>"
    },
    "name": "machship_get_pending_consignments_by_reference2"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referencesYesReference 2 values (max 10)

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

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 open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: a hard cap of 10 references per request, which tells the agent to batch. It does not say whether matching is exact or partial/case-sensitive, or what happens when a reference is not found, which matters for a lookup keyed on a free-text field.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the request cap follows immediately with no filler. The Args block duplicates the schema property description almost verbatim and is somewhat wasted space, but overall the text is short and scannable.

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?

The tool has one parameter, a full output schema, and rich annotations, so return values and safety need no explanation. What is missing is the matching behavior for Reference 2 and any note on partial results, which is the main thing an agent would need to interpret a returned set. Adequate but with a clear 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 the single parameter is fully documented structurally. The description's parameter note ('Reference 2 values (max 10)') merely restates the schema's own text, adding no matching semantics such as case sensitivity or substring behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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: 'Finds pending consignments by Reference 2 field.' The 'pending' qualifier is the key distinguisher from the sibling machship_get_consignments_by_reference2, and the by-reference-2 filter distinguishes it from machship_get_pending_consignments_by_ids and _by_reference1. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over the non-pending reference-2 lookup or the by-ids variant, and no prerequisites (e.g. does the consignment need to be in a specific state to count as pending). In a sibling set with three near-identical pending-consignment lookups, that omission leaves the agent to infer the routing decision.

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