Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ShippingTracker CJ대한통운 운송장 1234567890 조회해줘"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
한국 택배 배송 조회를 위한 MCP (Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다. SweetTracker API를 사용하여 택배사 목록과 운송장 번호를 조회합니다.
get_company_list(): 지원하는 택배회사 목록 조회
track_shipping(company_code, tracking_invoice): 배송 조회
Related MCP server: korea-stock-mcp
SweetTracker (스마트택배) API 키
git clone https://github.com/gws8820/shippingtracker.git
cd shippingtrackerecho "SWEETTRACKER_API_KEY=YOUR_API_KEY" > .envuv run python -m shippingtracker.main
# 또는 uvx로 실행
uvx --from . shippingtrackerClaude Desktop의 설정 파일(claude_desktop_config.json)을 다음과 같이 설정해 주세요.
{
"mcpServers": {
"shippingtracker": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["shippingtracker"],
"env": {
"SWEETTRACKER_API_KEY": "YOUR_API_KEY"
}
}
}
}이 프로젝트는 MIT 라이선스하에 배포됩니다.
Get Company List
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves the agent with no behavioral context.
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?
While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. 'Get Company List' is too minimal to be helpful, failing to provide necessary context or structure. It does not earn its place as a useful description.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Company List' includes, how results are returned, or any operational constraints. For a tool with no structured support, this description is inadequate.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the absence of parameters is adequately handled by the schema, and the description does not need to compensate.
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 'Get Company List' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'Company List' but lacks any detail about what this entails or how it differs from the sibling tool 'track_shipping', leaving the purpose vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'track_shipping' or any other context. The description offers no explicit or implied usage scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, making it completely unhelpful for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Track Shipping with Company Code and Tracking Invoice
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_code | Yes | ||
| tracking_invoice | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does at a high level. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks depth, making it borderline between concise and incomplete.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how it relates to 'get_company_list'. For a 2-parameter tool with no structured support, more context is needed for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only repeats parameter names ('Company Code and Tracking Invoice') without adding meaning. It doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., company_code as carrier identifier, tracking_invoice as package ID), format, or examples, leaving semantics unclear.
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 'Track Shipping with Company Code and Tracking Invoice' restates the tool name 'track_shipping' and lists parameters without specifying what tracking entails (e.g., retrieving status, location, or ETA). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_company_list' by implying action vs. list, but lacks a clear verb+resource definition like 'Retrieve shipping status for a package'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for tracking shipments, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other tools (e.g., if 'get_company_list' is needed first). This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_company_listtrack_shippingThe two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_company_list retrieves a list of companies, while track_shipping handles tracking shipments with specific identifiers. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_company_list, track_shipping) with clear, descriptive names. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'ShippingTracker' domain. This minimal set likely lacks essential operations like creating shipments, updating tracking info, or managing companies, which are core to shipping workflows.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a shipping tracking domain. It only provides retrieval (get_company_list) and tracking (track_shipping), missing critical operations such as creating shipments, updating statuses, deleting records, or handling returns, which will cause agent failures in real-world scenarios.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server for ua_postal_tracking_mcp
MCP server for EasyPost — rate shipments, buy & refund labels, track packages, verify addresses.
MCP Server for an Agent Task Marketplace
An MCP server that exposes functionalities to use Zomato's services.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gws8820/ShippingTracker'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
