Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Upload Commercial Invoice

machship_upload_commercial_invoice

Upload one or more base64-encoded commercial invoice files to a consignment for international shipments, attaching required customs documents by consignment ID.

Instructions

Uploads one or more commercial invoice files for a consignment (for international shipments). Files are provided as base64-encoded content.

Args:

  • consignmentId (number): The consignment to attach the invoice to

  • files (array): Array of files, each with fileName and fileBase64 content

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesInvoice files to upload
consignmentIdYesConsignment ID

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. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / consignmentId / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • removedInput schema / properties / files / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • 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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/side-effect profile is covered structurally. The description adds that multiple files are accepted and that content is base64-encoded, but it does not say what happens on re-upload (append vs replace), whether duplicates are allowed, or any file size/format limits — relevant for a non-idempotent write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the subsequent 'Args' block largely duplicates a schema that already has 100% description coverage, and the standalone sentence about base64 repeats the fileBase64 field description. Roughly a third of the text does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple two-parameter upload tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, encoding, and batching adequately; only edge behavior (replace vs append, size limits) is missing, which is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 both consignmentId and the nested fileName/fileBase64 fields are already documented in the schema. The Args section restates the same information without adding format, constraint, or format-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Uploads one or more commercial invoice files for a consignment') and scopes it with '(for international shipments)', which tells an agent the domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling machship_upload_attachments or explain how it differs from machship_get_commercial_invoice_pdf, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The parenthetical 'for international shipments' gives a usage condition, implying this should be used when a consignment requires a commercial invoice for cross-border movement. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer machship_upload_attachments, and no prerequisites such as whether the consignment must exist or be in a particular status.

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