machship-mcp

Update Despatch Dates for Manifest

machship_update_despatch_dates

Updates despatch dates and estimated time of arrival (ETA) for multiple consignments, using consignment IDs to apply new schedule values.

Instructions

Updates despatch dates and estimated time of arrival (ETA) for a set of consignments.

Args:

updates (array): Array of objects with consignmentId and new despatch date/ETA

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`updates`	Yes	Despatch date updates (consignmentId, despatchDate, eta)

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 / updates / 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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the description needs to add operational context and does not: no statement about required permissions, whether manifested consignments are rejected, whether a re-manifest is triggered, or how partial failures across the array are handled. The non-idempotent hint is especially relevant for a bulk update and is left entirely unexplained.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, and the total length is small. The trailing Args block largely duplicates the input schema, which is redundant but only mildly wasteful.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a bulk mutation with a single required array parameter, the description omits eligibility rules, manifest interaction implied by the title, batch failure semantics, and idempotency implications, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 100% and the schema already documents the single 'updates' array with its consignmentId, despatchDate and eta members. The description's Args block restates that same list without adding format, date encoding, max batch size, or behavior for unknown consignmentIds, so it sits at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Updates despatch dates and estimated time of arrival (ETA) for a set of consignments'), making the operation identifiable at a glance. However, the title references 'Manifest' while the description never mentions manifests, so the agent cannot tell from the description whether consignments must be manifested or grouped before this applies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, what state the consignments must be in, or what to do instead (e.g., edit_consignment or re-manifest) when a date change is not permitted. The only hint of scope is 'a set of consignments,' which is not actionable guidance.

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

Deploy Server