machship-mcp

Group Consignments for Consolidation

machship_group_consignments_for_consolidation

Read-only

Groups consignments by carrier, route, and other options to preview consolidation groups before committing shipments.

Instructions

Automatically groups consignments into consolidation groups based on options (carrier, route, etc.). Returns groups without actually consolidating — preview step before consolidation.

Args:

options (object): Consolidation grouping options (companyId, carrierId, etc.)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`options`	Yes	Consolidation grouping options

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

addedInput schema / properties / options / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'without actually consolidating — preview step before consolidation', which is the single most important behavioral fact for an agent deciding whether it is safe to call. It does not cover idempotency (annotations say idempotentHint=false, meaning repeated calls may yield different groupings) or how grouping is decided.

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 sentences front-load purpose and the no-side-effect guarantee, and the Args block is short. The redundant 'options (object): Consolidation grouping options' restates the schema description verbatim, which is minor waste.

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 tool whose only input is a free-form options bag, the description is thin: it lists two example keys and 'etc.' with no indication of required vs optional keys, default grouping behavior, or what the returned groups look like structurally. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the untyped nested object still warrants more guidance.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, but the 'options' object is declared as additionalProperties:{} with no defined properties, so the schema conveys essentially no semantics. The description partially compensates by naming companyId and carrierId, but 'etc.' leaves the agent guessing which grouping keys are actually accepted.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('groups') on a specific resource ('consignments into consolidation groups') and immediately states the crucial scope: it returns groups without consolidating. That distinguishes it in practice from the perform-consolidation siblings, though it never names them.

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?

'Preview step before consolidation' tells the agent when to reach for this instead of actually consolidating. It stops short of naming machship_perform_consolidation or machship_group_and_perform_consolidation as the follow-up alternatives, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server