Skip to main content
Glama
GPX MCP Server
by gpxco

List stops for a shipment

list_shipment_stops
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a shipment's ordered stops and classify each as origin, destination, or intermediate using the shipment ID.

Instructions

List stops for a shipment

Returns a shipment's itinerary in order. stop_type marks each stop as the origin, the destination or a stop in between.

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": {
      "shipmentId": "<shipmentId>"
    },
    "name": "list_shipment_stops"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shipmentIdYesThe shipment id, from `list_shipments`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the return semantics that no output schema provides: results are ordered and each item carries a stop_type of origin, destination, or intermediate.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the return-shape note immediately following the purpose statement. The opening line largely restates the tool name and title, which is the only wasted content.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, in what order, and how each stop is classified. It stops short of describing volume or pagination behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents shipmentId and even its provenance. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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 gives a specific verb and resource (list a shipment's stops) and clarifies that the result is an ordered itinerary. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling tools list_shipment_routes and get_shipment_route, which is the most likely source of mis-selection given the near-identical naming.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling route tools an agent must choose between. The only routing hint ('from `list_shipments`') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself provides no usage direction.

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