Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cdek

cdek

by dontsovcmc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cdek_registries

Retrieve registries of cash on delivery payments transferred to the client on a specified date.

Instructions

Получение информации о реестрах наложенных платежей (GET /v2/registries).

Реестры НП, по которым клиенту был переведен наложенный платеж в заданную дату.

Args: date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format

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": {
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "cdek_registries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description must bear full burden. It implies a read-only operation (GET endpoint) and specifies data returned (registries for a given date), but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 with an args section. Efficient and front-loaded with the endpoint. Slightly unstructured but appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

Given simple tool with one parameter and existing output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter format. However, it lacks details on the structure of returned data or pagination, which could be important. Adequate but not complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds format hint (YYYY-MM-DD) for the required 'date' parameter. This clarifies input beyond what the schema provides, though does not explain the exact meaning of the date (e.g., payment date vs. registry date).

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves information about registries of cash on delivery payments (реестры наложенных платежей) and provides the endpoint. It is distinct among siblings with 'registries' in name but lacks explicit differentiation from other cdek tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdek_waybill or cdek_get_order. It simply describes functionality without specifying context or exclusions.

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