Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-logistics-tracker

mcp-logistics-tracker

by k3-yamada
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_tracking_history

Get a chronological timeline of delivery events for any package by providing the carrier code and tracking number.

Instructions

指定した配送業者・追跡番号の配送イベント履歴を時系列で返す。

Args: carrier: 配送業者コード（例: yamato / sagawa / japanpost）。 tracking_number: 追跡番号（数字。ハイフン/空白は自動除去）。

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": {
      "carrier": "<carrier>",
      "tracking_number": "<tracking_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_tracking_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
carrierYes
tracking_numberYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses chronological ordering and automatic removal of hyphens/spaces from tracking numbers. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or read-only behavior.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose, then a clear Args section. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with main functionality.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks references to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_carriers' for valid codes) and does not provide broader context like authentication or when to prefer this tool over 'track_shipment'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well: it provides carrier examples (yamato, sagawa, japanpost) and explains tracking number formatting (numbers, hyphens/spaces removed). This adds significant value beyond the schema's empty type strings.

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 it returns delivery event history for a given carrier and tracking number in chronological order. The verb '返す' (returns) and specific resource '配送イベント履歴' are present, distinguishing it from siblings like 'track_shipment' which may provide a different scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'track_shipment' or 'list_carriers'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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