machship-mcp

Send Labels to Printer

machship_send_labels_to_printer

Sends consignment labels directly to a configured Machship printer using print requests with consignment ID, printer ID, and label type.

Instructions

Sends labels directly to a configured printer in Machship.

Args:

requests (array): Array of print requests, each with consignmentId, printerId, labelType, etc.

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": {
      "requests": "<requests>"
    },
    "name": "machship_send_labels_to_printer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requests`	Yes	Print requests (consignmentId, printerId, labelType)

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 / requests / items / 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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the side-effecting, non-idempotent nature is covered structurally. The description reinforces that labels go to an external, pre-configured printer, but says nothing about printer-unavailable failures, whether the call blocks, or how many labels get produced per request.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and unambiguous, and the Args block is compact. Slight redundancy against the schema keeps it from a 5.

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 annotations present and an output schema available, the description needn't explain return values. However, for a tool that emits physical print jobs, the absence of any note on printer configuration requirements or failure behaviour leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to handle results.

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 schema already names consignmentId, printerId and labelType, so the description's Args block largely restates structured data. The trailing 'etc.' adds no real meaning about any additional request fields.

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: sends labels directly to a configured printer. An agent can distinguish this from sibling PDF-retrieval tools like machship_get_consignment_label_pdf, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'directly' and 'configured printer' suggest a physical print action rather than downloading a label file, which is enough to infer when to prefer this over machship_get_consignment_label_pdf. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server