Parcel Tracking MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search-carrierC | Search carriers by name keyword (supports fuzzy typos) |
| tracking-deliveryA | Track a parcel delivery via 17TRACK |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for carriers by name, while the other tracks parcel deliveries. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search-carrier and tracking-delivery), using hyphens for separation. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a parcel tracking domain. A typical tracking system would include more operations, such as creating shipments, updating statuses, or handling multiple carriers, making this count insufficient for comprehensive coverage.
The toolset is severely incomplete for parcel tracking. It lacks essential CRUD operations like creating or updating shipments, retrieving carrier details beyond search, and managing delivery events. This will likely cause agent failures in common tracking workflows.