M.Video MCP

M.Video shipment create

mvideo_shipment_create

Create shipments for FBS orders. Defaults to dry-run validation; confirm with idempotency key to execute live write.

Instructions

Create a shipment for FBS orders. Defaults to dry-run; live write requires idempotency_key and confirm.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "mvideo_shipment_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`dry_run`	No
`request`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses a key behavior (dry-run default) but introduces 'idempotency_key' which is not present in the input schema, causing ambiguity. It does not explain side effects or return values, so full burden falls on the description with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Every clause adds value—purpose, mode, and prerequisite are all covered efficiently.

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?

Despite the simplicity, the tool has a nested required 'request' object with 0% schema coverage. The description omits any details about the request structure, output, or error handling, making it inadequate for a create tool without annotations or output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies dry_run and confirm but fails to describe the required 'request' object. It also mentions idempotency_key which is not a parameter, undermining reliability for parameter interpretation.

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 'Create a shipment for FBS orders' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mvideo_order_fbs_list or mvideo_stock_update, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear context: default dry-run, live write requires confirm. This is practical guidance for safe usage, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives.

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

Deploy Server