England taxi/private-hire PHV licensing: official-source blockers, stale sources, compare councils.
x402 paid comparison across TWO OR MORE councils/licensing authorities ($0.05 USDC/call). Use when a user asks which authority is easier/better to license in, wants requirements/trade-offs compared, or is choosing where to license an applicant/fleet. Not for a single-authority eligibility check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Cross-authority comparison request. Call list_supported_authorities first, then supply one or more exact authority names plus the applicant facts to compare. Additional applicant facts are allowed so authority-specific rule inputs are not narrowed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the paid nature and exact cost ($0.05 USDC/call), the two-or-more authority constraint, and the fact that results are comparative. It stops short of describing output format or failure behavior, but the most important behavioral traits are visible.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the paid nature, cost, and cardinality, then gives concrete use cases and an exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers selection criteria, cost, minimum cardinality, and the main exclusion, while the schema adds the prerequisite to call list_supported_authorities first. The main missing piece is output format, but the description is adequate for deciding when to call and how to construct a valid payload.
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 coverage is high, and the payload schema is unusually rich: it explains that authorities must be exact names from list_supported_authorities, that applicant facts apply consistently, and that additional applicant facts are allowed. The description's 'TWO OR MORE' requirement also usefully tightens the schema's looser minItems:1 constraint.
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 states a specific action: a paid comparison of licensing requirements across two or more councils/authorities, and explicitly lists the user intents it serves. It also differentiates itself from single-authority eligibility checks, which separates it clearly from sibling tools.
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 gives explicit triggers ('easier/better to license in', 'requirements/trade-offs compared', 'choosing where to license') and an explicit negative case ('Not for a single-authority eligibility check'). It does not name the exact alternative sibling tool, but the when/when-not guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free official-source health and evidence-freshness check before relying on a licensing answer or decision. Use when the user asks whether source data is current, fresh, stale, changed, trustworthy, conflicted, inaccessible, or under review for one authority or globally. Do not use for applicant eligibility itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| authority | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source type ('official-source'), the cost ('Free'), and the operation type ('check', implying read-only), and the mention of 'inaccessible' hints at the kind of statuses reported. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, requires authentication, makes external network requests, or what the output looks like.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the purpose, the second lists concrete trigger queries, and the third gives the key exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, and no schema details are redundantly repeated.
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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, parameter semantics, and exclusion. However, it never explains what the tool returns (e.g., a status report, freshness flags, timestamps) or how it handles an unknown authority, which leaves an agent somewhat in the dark about result handling.
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 explain the 'authority' parameter, and it does: 'for one authority or globally' clarifies that the parameter narrows the check to a specific authority, while omitting it (null/default) means global coverage. It does not specify the exact string format or naming convention, but the core semantics are clear.
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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'health and evidence-freshness check' of official licensing sources. It also distinguishes itself from applicant-eligibility tools by explicitly saying 'Do not use for applicant eligibility itself,' and the enumerated trigger topics (current, stale, changed, conflicted, etc.) make the scope unmistakable.
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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use when the user asks whether source data is current, fresh, stale, changed...') and a clear when-not boundary ('Do not use for applicant eligibility itself'). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free discovery tool for coverage. Use when the user asks which councils/licensing authorities are supported, whether a named council or authority is supported, or what areas this taxi/PHV MCP can handle. Do not use to decide applicant eligibility.
| 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 carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating 'discovery tool' and adds an exclusion boundary, but it does not state return format, data source, auth needs, or rate limits. It is not contradictory, but behavioral detail remains thin.
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?
Two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second gives precise use cases and an explicit exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description is complete for selection and invocation. The tool's name plus description make the output shape obvious, and the eligibility exclusion closes the main misunderstanding risk.
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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.
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 states a specific purpose ('discovery tool for coverage') and names the exact user intents that should trigger it: asking which councils/authorities are supported or whether a named one is supported. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools focused on requirements, source status, and preflight checks.
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 provides an explicit when-to-use list covering multiple phrasings of the same need, and an explicit when-not-to-use instruction ('Do not use to decide applicant eligibility'). This gives an agent decisive selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x402 paid decision for ONE council/licensing authority ($0.02 USDC/call). Use when a user asks whether one driver, applicant, vehicle or fleet is eligible/ready, what requirements or blockers apply, what information is missing, or what to do next before submission/onboarding. Not for comparing multiple authorities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | One-authority applicant/fleet preflight facts. Start by calling list_supported_authorities and use the returned authority name exactly. Additional authority-specific facts are allowed and are evaluated only when the evidence-backed rule bundle declares them. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the paid nature and exact cost ($0.02 USDC/call) and the single-authority scope, which is valuable. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only call, whether it has side effects, or what the decision response contains beyond the implied eligibility/requirements/missing-information output.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler: cost/scope is front-loaded, the use-cases are compactly listed, and the exclusion is a single clear clause. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers cost, scope, when to use, and the main exclusion, which is strong for a preflight decision tool. It does not describe the return structure, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the input schema provides important workflow guidance such as starting with list_supported_authorities. A little more on response shape would make it fully complete.
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 100%, and the payload schema already documents each field, including the instruction to use the authority name returned by list_supported_authorities. The tool-level description adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states this is a paid decision for ONE council/licensing authority and enumerates the concrete question types it answers: eligibility/readiness, requirements/blockers, missing information, and next steps. It mostly differentiates from siblings by noting it is not for comparing multiple authorities, though it does not name the alternative compare tool directly.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use when a user asks whether...' and lists specific intents, giving clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It also provides a when-not with 'Not for comparing multiple authorities,' but it stops short of naming sibling tools explicitly, so it is not quite a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free service metadata, pricing and x402 buyer guidance. Use when the user asks what this MCP/service does, what a paid call costs, how payment/x402 works, or what the evidence-safety boundary is. Do not use for a licensing decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool is free, informational, and provides guidance rather than executing an action. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' but the informational nature is strongly implied and sufficient for a zero-parameter metadata tool.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by concise usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary orientation: what it is, when to use it, and when not to. The sibling tools and output schema handle the remaining context, so nothing critical 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no schema fields to document. The empty input schema is fully covered, and the description appropriately focuses on usage context rather than parameter syntax, which is moot here.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a metadata/pricing/guidance resource, with specific examples of user intents it serves ('what this MCP/service does, what a paid call costs, how payment/x402 works'). It also differentiates itself from the licensing-focused sibling tools with an explicit 'Do not use for a licensing decision' directive.
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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use when the user asks...') and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('Do not use for a licensing decision'). This leaves no ambiguity about when the agent should select this tool over the licensing-oriented siblings.
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.
compare_licensing_requirements6 fields changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / payload / descriptionAdded value: +"Cross-authority comparison request. Call list_supported_authorities first, then supply one or more exact authority names plus the applicant facts to compare. Additional applicant facts are allowed so authority-specific rule inputs are not narrowed."Input schema / properties / payload / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "applicant": {
+ "age": 30,
+ "driving_licence_years": 4,
+ "has_pass_plus_certificate": true
+ },
+ "authorities": [
+ "City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council",
+ "Cambridge City Council"
+ ]
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / payload / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "applicant": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Applicant/fleet facts applied consistently to every authority in the comparison.",
+ "examples": [
+ {
+ "age": 30,
+ "driving_licence_years": 4,
+ "has_pass_plus_certificate": true
+ }
+ ],
+ "properties": {
+ "age": {
+ "description": "Applicant age in years when relevant to the authority rule being checked.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "driving_licence_years": {
+ "description": "Completed years the applicant has held the driving licence, when known.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "has_pass_plus_certificate": {
+ "description": "Whether the applicant has a Pass Plus certificate, when relevant.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "authorities": {
+ "description": "Exact supported authority names returned by list_supported_authorities.",
+ "items": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array",
+ "uniqueItems": true
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / payload / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "authorities",
+ "applicant"
+]Input schema / properties / payload / titleRemoved value: -"Payload"taxi_licence_preflight6 fields changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / payload / descriptionAdded value: +"One-authority applicant/fleet preflight facts. Start by calling list_supported_authorities and use the returned authority name exactly. Additional authority-specific facts are allowed and are evaluated only when the evidence-backed rule bundle declares them."Input schema / properties / payload / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "age": 30,
+ "authority": "City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council",
+ "driving_licence_years": 4,
+ "has_pass_plus_certificate": true
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / payload / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "age": {
+ "description": "Applicant age in years when relevant to the authority rule being checked.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "authority": {
+ "description": "Exact supported licensing-authority name returned by list_supported_authorities.",
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "driving_licence_years": {
+ "description": "Completed years the applicant has held the driving licence, when known.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "has_pass_plus_certificate": {
+ "description": "Whether the applicant has a Pass Plus certificate, when relevant.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / payload / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "authority"
+]Input schema / properties / payload / titleRemoved value: -"Payload"compare_licensing_requirementslicensing_source_statuslist_supported_authoritiestaxi_licence_preflighttaxi_phv_infoClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
UK premises licensing preflight for 10 authorities with live evidence guards and x402 decisions.
UK tolls & charges: DVLA vehicle checks (ULEZ/CAZ/MOT/tax), prices, penalties, pay-by deadlines.
CQC registration, provider-change and notification decisions for England with official evidence.
Published driving guides, source-backed UK and US test-centre search, and study-plan previews.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly separate role: single-authority eligibility, multi-authority comparison, source health, coverage discovery, and service metadata. The descriptions even include explicit 'not for' guidance, so an agent should not confuse them.
All names use lowercase snake_case and are descriptive, but two use verb-first construction (compare_, list_) while the other three are noun phrases (licensing_source_status, taxi_licence_preflight, taxi_phv_info). This is a minor style deviation rather than a chaotic mix.
Five tools is an appropriate size for a decision-layer server: two paid decision tools and three free support/info tools. Each tool has a distinct workflow purpose and none are redundant.
The tool set covers the full decision workflow: discovering supported authorities, checking source freshness, running a single-authority preflight, comparing authorities, and getting service/pricing guidance. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated scope.
