Skip to main content
Glama
ebongard

renfield-mcp-tracking

by ebongard
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: carrier detection, listing carriers, and tracking parcels. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (detect_carrier, list_carriers, track_parcel), with consistent naming. The slight pluralization in list_carriers is natural for listing operations.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the set is concise yet sufficient for the domain of parcel tracking. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the core lifecycle: carrier detection (identify carrier from number), carrier discovery (list available carriers), and tracking (get status and events). No obvious gaps for a tracking helper server.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    The description discloses behavioral traits: best effort, confident only for certain formats, returns fallback with confident=False for ambiguous numbers. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is extremely concise, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence, and uses an Args section efficiently for the single parameter.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides sufficient behavioral detail and limitations. It mentions the confident flag, though it could be slightly more explicit about the return format.

    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?

    The only parameter 'tracking_number' is described as 'The number to classify,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially but not richly.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool guesses the carrier from a tracking number format, mentioning specific carriers (UPS, DHL) and distinguishing it from siblings like list_carriers and track_parcel.

    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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool, indicating it is for classifying a tracking number, and describes behavior like fallback carrier and confidence flag, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: carrier auto-detection, the return structure (statuses, events order, etc.), and default parameter values. This is comprehensive without annotations.

    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 description is front-loaded with purpose and organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. Still efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields including status enum values, events ordering, and web_url. It covers input, behavior, and output completely for a parcel tracking tool.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare input schema. It explains tracking_number as 'carrier tracking number / piece code' and lists valid carrier codes for carrier parameter. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's action ('Track a parcel') and the resources involved ('status, ETA and event history'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools 'detect_carrier' and 'list_carriers' which have different purposes.

    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 description provides implied usage (e.g., carrier auto-detection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or any when-not scenarios. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion context.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a list of carriers with a flag indicating whether each is configured and usable. It explains the meaning of 'configured=False' for api carriers and that link carriers always work. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only listing operation.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is extremely concise: two focused sentences plus an additional clarifying line. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (list of carriers with configuration status) and interprets the status values. This is complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.

    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?

    The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds value by explaining the output semantics.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the primary function: listing supported carriers and their configuration status. It distinguishes between 'api' and 'link' carriers, providing specific details that differentiate this tool from its siblings (detect_carrier, track_parcel).

    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 description explains when to use the tool (to see available carriers and their usability) and provides context about credential requirements for 'api' carriers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the context is implied.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

renfield-mcp-tracking MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

renfield-mcp-tracking MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ebongard/renfield-mcp-tracking'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server