Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GPX MCP Server

GPX MCP Server

by gpxco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Show a container type

get_container_type
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one container type by ID, using an ID returned by list_container_types, to inspect its details for GPX device and shipment lookups.

Instructions

Show a container type

Returns one container type.

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": {
      "containerTypeId": "<containerTypeId>"
    },
    "name": "get_container_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
containerTypeIdYesThe container type id, from `list_container_types`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no note on what happens for an unknown ID, no indication of error or empty behavior, no return shape given there is no output schema.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence merely rephrases the first ('Returns one container type'), so it does not earn its place. There is no wasted length, but there is wasted content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple single-parameter read tool with annotations and a fully described schema, the gaps are small, but with no output schema the description should at least characterize what a container type contains. As written, the agent learns nothing it could not read off the name and annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, including the 'from list_container_types' reference. The description contributes no additional meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the title almost verbatim ('Show a container type / Returns one container type'), which is tautological. The only implicit differentiation from the sibling list_container_types is the singular 'one', and that is left for the agent to infer 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance appears in the description. The useful hint about where the ID comes from ('list_container_types') lives only in the schema property, not in the description, so the description itself gives no routing or prerequisite information.

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