Skip to main content
Glama

axion-gateway

by com.getaxionlabs

operator_route_lookup

Look up a UK private parking operator and get the independent appeals body that hears its appeals (POPLA or the IAS), the appeal window in days, the operator's own appeal and discount windows, and POPLA's decided-appeal record for it. Accepts a company name, a trading name, or an Appeals Desk slug. The route matters: BPA members go to POPLA (28 days), IPC members go to the IAS (21 days), and an appeal sent to the wrong body is wasted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operatorYesOperator company name, trading name, or slug — e.g. 'ParkingEye', 'Euro Car Parks', 'apcoa-parking'.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing accepted input forms (company name, trading name, or slug) and the practical consequence of misrouting appeals. It stops short of describing error behavior or explicitly confirming a read-only operation, but the lookup framing and domain warning cover the main behavioral risks.

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 dense sentences front-load the tool's purpose and output, then provide accepted input forms and the critical routing rule. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description explains both the inputs and the expected return content well. It could go slightly further by noting what happens when an operator is not found, but the essential information an agent needs to call it successfully is present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'operator', is fully described with accepted types and examples. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and names the exact resource (UK private parking operator) plus the key outputs (POPLA/IAS, appeal windows, POPLA record). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like popla_outcomes and deadline_calculator by tying operator lookup to appeal routing.

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?

The description provides clear contextual guidance: BPA members go to POPLA with 28 days, IPC members go to the IAS with 21 days, and sending an appeal to the wrong body wastes it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the routing guidance gives enough context for an agent to decide.

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

All axion-gateway toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in subject matter: borough_odds, violation_dismissal_rates, and plate_lookup all touch NYC hearing outcomes, while operator_route_lookup and popla_outcomes both expose POPLA operator records. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate them on close reading, but an agent could easily select the wrong one when asking for odds or appeal outcomes.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: get_mtd_answer, list_doors, and search_mtd_answers use a verb_noun form, while borough_odds, popla_outcomes, and violation_dismissal_rates are noun phrases, and plate_lookup/operator_route_lookup use noun_lookup compounds. There is no single consistent naming convention across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is within the ideal range and each tool represents a distinct, substantive data product or query endpoint. For a gateway spanning multiple domains, this is well-scoped and not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The main query surfaces are covered: NYC parking has plate, borough, and violation-type views; UK parking has operator routing, deadline calculation, and POPLA outcomes; and MTD has search plus full-answer retrieval. Minor gaps exist, such as IAS appeal outcomes and a way to list all MTD answers without searching, but these are workable rather than blocking.

Resources