mcp-ups

get_rates

Calculate UPS shipping rates for a package using origin and destination ZIP codes and package weight. Get cost estimates for shipments between two addresses.

Instructions

Get UPS shipping rates between two addresses for a package.

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": {
      "from_zip": "<from_zip>",
      "to_zip": "<to_zip>",
      "weight_lbs": "<weight_lbs>"
    },
    "name": "get_rates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to_zip`	Yes	Destination ZIP code
`from_zip`	Yes	Origin ZIP code
`width_in`	No	Package width in inches
`height_in`	No	Package height in inches
`length_in`	No	Package length in inches
`weight_lbs`	Yes	Package weight in pounds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets rates, without mentioning return format, limitations (e.g., US-only), or that it requires ZIP codes rather than full addresses. The mismatch between 'addresses' and the actual ZIP code parameters further reduces transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no wasteful words, though it is minimal.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return value structure, any constraints, or clarify the actual input format (ZIP codes vs addresses), leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description itself does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (UPS shipping rates) and scope (between two addresses for a package). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like track_package and find_locations.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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

Deploy Server