parcel_tracking_autoTrack a Korean parcel in real time with automatic carrier detection from the tracking number alone. 택배사 지정 없이 운송장번호만으로 택배사를 자동 판별해 실시간 배송현황을 조회합니다. 택배사를 이미 아는 경우에는 parcel_tracking Tool이 더 정확합니다. [호출당 10포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackingNumber | Yes | 운송장번호 (택배사 지정 없이 형식만으로 자동 판별) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: automatic carrier detection from the tracking number format, real-time status lookup, and a per-call point cost. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: an English sentence, a Korean mirror sentence, and a third sentence naming the alternative and cost. The bilingual duplication is a minor redundancy, but the purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and openWorldHint, the description covers the core decision factors: function, usage condition, alternative, and cost. Return format is not specified, but no output schema exists and openWorldHint signals variable results, so nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes trackingNumber with 100% coverage ('운송장번호 (택배사 지정 없이 형식만으로 자동 판별)'). The description reinforces the same idea with 'from the tracking number alone' but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Track a Korean parcel in real time with automatic carrier detection from the tracking number alone.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling parcel_tracking by emphasizing auto-detection versus a known carrier, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use this tool: when no carrier is specified and only the waybill number is available. It also names the alternative: '택배사를 이미 아는 경우에는 parcel_tracking Tool이 더 정확합니다' (if you already know the carrier, parcel_tracking is more accurate), providing direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools target the same documents with unclear boundaries: identi_card_image1, ocr_identi1, and identity_document_id_card all accept a resident registration card image but differ in verification vs extraction vs masking, which agents will struggle to distinguish. The identi_card1-5 vs identi_card_image1-5 vs ocr_identi1-5 clusters are especially confusing, despite some helpful descriptions.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (check_phone_valid, search_juso, pdf_merge), some are bare nouns (whois, nslookup, ocr, stt), and identity tools use three parallel schemes (identi_card1, identi_card_image1, ocr_identi1, identity_document_id_card) with no clear pattern. No single convention is followed across the toolset.
88 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, spanning identity verification, parcel tracking, LLM chat, image generation, PDF conversion, TTS, and network lookups. This is an API marketplace dump rather than a focused toolset, and the number far exceeds any reasonable scope.
The server's scope is unbounded, so it has gaps everywhere: no video transcription shortcut, no PDF splitting, no batch cancellation for images (only TTS), and identity clusters lack clear differentiation between verify/extract/mask workflows. Some subdomains like TTS have a full lifecycle, but overall the coverage is scattered and incomplete for the implied breadth.