machship-mcp

Update and Reprice Consignment

machship_update_reprice_consignment

Updates consignment items on a carrier invoice entry and triggers repricing to reconcile carrier invoice discrepancies.

Instructions

Updates consignment items on a carrier invoice entry and triggers repricing. Use for reconciling carrier invoice discrepancies.

Args:

body (object): Repricing request payload (consignmentId, items, 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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "machship_update_reprice_consignment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Repricing request payload

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 / body / 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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: that repricing is triggered as a side effect of the update. It says nothing about what state is overwritten, whether repricing can fail, or any permission requirements, so it clears the lowered bar without being rich.

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 plus a short Args block, with purpose and usage front-loaded. The Args line mostly repeats the schema's own parameter description, but it is small enough not to be a real liability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation whose sole parameter is an untyped nested payload, though, 'etc.' leaves the agent guessing about required body structure and about the repricing outcome, which is a meaningful gap for this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the body parameter is a free-form object with no typed properties, so the schema conveys almost nothing. The description compensates by naming expected payload members (consignmentId, items), which gives the agent a starting shape it could not get from the schema alone.

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: updates consignment items on a carrier invoice entry and triggers repricing. The phrasing is slightly muddled about whether the invoice entry or the consignment is the object being updated, but an agent can still tell this is a write-plus-reprice operation distinct from the many read-only consignment tools.

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?

Gives a use context ('Use for reconciling carrier invoice discrepancies'), which is more than nothing. However, it never names an alternative or exclusion, despite sibling tools like machship_attempt_auto_reconciliation and machship_get_carrier_invoice_entries that plausibly overlap, so the routing decision is only implied.

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

Deploy Server