starshipit-mcp

List Shipped Orders

starshipit_list_shipped_orders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve manifested and dispatched StarShipIt orders with tracking numbers and carrier details to review dispatch history or feed tracking workflows. Filter by shipment date and paginate results.

Instructions

List shipped orders from StarShipIt. Returns orders that have been manifested and dispatched to the carrier.

When to use: Use to check dispatch history or to feed downstream tracking workflows.

Parameters:

since_shipped_date (optional) — Only return orders shipped after this ISO 8601 timestamp
limit (optional, default 50, max 250) — Number of results per page
page (optional, default 1) — Page number
response_format — "markdown" (default) or "json"

Returns: List of shipped Order objects with tracking numbers and carrier details. Includes has_more flag.

Errors: 401 if API keys invalid.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number for pagination (default: 1)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (default: 50, max: 250)
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' for human-readable or 'json' for machine-readable	markdown
`since_shipped_date`	No	Only return orders shipped after this ISO 8601 timestamp (e.g. 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`errors`	No	Validation or processing errors returned by StarShipIt
`object`	No	The response payload when StarShipIt returns a non-object value
`success`	No	StarShipIt success flag (a boolean on most endpoints)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing pagination via a has_more flag, per-page limits, and the 401 auth-failure condition, though it says nothing about ordering guarantees or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then clearly sectioned headers for when-to-use, parameters, returns, and errors. The parameter bullets duplicate the schema descriptions, costing some words, but the structure makes scanning fast and nothing is truly extraneous.

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?

For a read-only paginated list tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, pagination, and an error case, which is close to complete. Only minor gaps remain (result ordering, whether has_more requires requesting the next page).

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 100% and each property is described there, so the parameter section largely restates the schema (including the same ISO 8601 example). The one modest addition is grouping the params with defaults in one place, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('List shipped orders from StarShipIt') and clarifies the scope as orders 'manifested and dispatched to the carrier', which implicitly separates it from siblings like list_printed_orders and list_unshipped_orders. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

The 'When to use' section gives concrete contexts (checking dispatch history, feeding tracking workflows), which is clear usage guidance without naming exclusions or alternatives. An agent gets a positive signal but no explicit 'use X instead for Y' routing against the many sibling list/search tools.

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

Deploy Server