Legal towing check for ~46 AU vehicles — compliant/marginal/illegal + the binding constraint.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined.
With only one tool, naming consistency is not applicable, but the tool name 'check_towing' is clear and follows a verb_noun pattern.
The server has a single, highly specialized tool. While the count is low, it is appropriate for the narrow domain of Australian towing legality checks.
The tool covers the core query of towing legality for a vehicle and caravan combination. It includes checks for multiple constraints (braked capacity, towball download, GVM, GCM) and provides maximum ATM. Minor gaps like towing capacity without a caravan or general vehicle specs are not covered, but the domain is well-served.
check_towingAInspectUse when someone asks whether an Australian vehicle can legally tow a particular caravan or trailer — "can my Ranger tow a 3 tonne van", "am I over GCM", "what is the heaviest caravan I can tow", "is my towing setup legal". Given a vehicle + variant and the caravan's ATM (plus optional tow-vehicle payload), returns whether the combination is legally compliant, marginal or illegal, WHICH limit binds (braked capacity, towball download, GVM or GCM — often not the braked rating everyone quotes), the maximum ATM that is legal for that vehicle, and remaining payload. Manufacturer-spec information, not advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| load | No | people + gear in the tow vehicle (kg) | |
| van_atm | Yes | caravan Aggregate Trailer Mass (kg) | |
| variant | No | trim/variant, e.g. V6 or SR5 | |
| vehicle | Yes | make + model, e.g. Ford Ranger |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the tool returns (compliance status, binding limit, maximum ATM, remaining payload), notes that it uses manufacturer specifications (not advice), and describes the key outputs. It does not cover data freshness, rate limits, or required permissions, but for a query tool these are not critical.
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 paragraph that is information-dense but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the use case and then lists outputs, but could be more concise by splitting into shorter sentences. Every sentence provides value, but the overall structure is not optimal for quick scanning.
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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (compliance status, binding limit, max ATM, remaining payload). It also clarifies the tool's scope (Australian vehicles, manufacturer specs, not advice). Minor missing details like data source update frequency prevent a perfect score, but it is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The tool description adds little beyond repeating that 'load' is people+gear and 'variant' is trim. The description does not elaborate on how parameters interact or their defaults. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check legal towing compliance for Australian vehicles with caravans/trailers. It provides specific example queries and outlines the outputs (compliance status, binding limit, max ATM, remaining payload). The verb 'check towing' and the resource (vehicle+caravan) are explicit, and the description distinguishes the tool from potential alternatives by specifying its scope.
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 advises when to use the tool ('Use when someone asks whether...') and provides typical user queries. Although no alternative tools are mentioned (no siblings), the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance but the use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!