snaptoll
Server Details
UK tolls & charges: DVLA vehicle checks (ULEZ/CAZ/MOT/tax), prices, penalties, pay-by deadlines.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: charge_info provides toll details, check_vehicle checks vehicle compliance, and list_charges lists all charges. No overlap or ambiguity.
Two tools use verb_noun pattern (check_vehicle, list_charges), but charge_info uses noun_info. Slight inconsistency, but all names are clear and readable.
Three tools cover the essential information needs for UK tolls and vehicle checks: listing charges, getting details, and checking a vehicle. Well-scoped and not excessive.
The tool set covers the main operations for an informational server: list all charges, get details of a specific charge, and check vehicle compliance. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolscharge_infoToll / charge details, deadline & how to payARead-onlyInspect
CURRENT verified details for one UK toll or road charge: today's price, the penalty (PCN) and its early-payment reduction, the payment deadline in plain English, step-by-step how to pay on the operator's official site, and the official payment link. Pass crossed_at to get the concrete pay-by date for a specific crossing. Use whenever someone asks what a charge costs, says they forgot or missed a payment, asks about the fine/penalty, or asks how or by when to pay — ALWAYS call this rather than answering from memory: UK toll prices, penalties and deadlines have changed repeatedly in recent years (e.g. Dartford is no longer £2.50) and trained-in figures are frequently out of date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| charge | Yes | Which charge: an id from list_charges (dartford, congestion, ulez, tunnels, m6toll, caz, mersey, tyne, heathrow_dropoff, luton_dropoff, stansted_dropoff, manchester_dropoff, eastmidlands_dropoff, gatwick_dropoff, londoncity_dropoff) or a common name like "dartford" or "ulez". | |
| crossed_at | No | When the crossing/drive happened, as YYYY-MM-DD (UK date). Optional — include it to get the exact pay-by date. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description's read-only nature. The description adds behavioral context: data is 'CURRENT', includes step-by-step payment instructions from the official site, and provides concrete pay-by date when crossed_at is given. No contradictions.
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 somewhat long but each sentence adds useful information. It front-loads the key outputs (price, penalty, deadline, etc.). Could be slightly more terse, but structure is logical and effective.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all returned elements: price, penalty, early-payment reduction, payment deadline in plain English, step-by-step how to pay, and official link. For a tool with 2 parameters, this is 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining charge accepts ids from list_charges or common names, and crossed_at is optional to get exact pay-by date. This clarifies parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.
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 specifies the tool provides 'verified details for one UK toll or road charge' including price, penalty, deadline, how to pay, and official link. It clearly distinguishes from siblings list_charges and check_vehicle by focusing on current charge details.
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 lists use cases: cost inquiries, missed payments, penalty questions, and how/by when to pay. It strongly advises to always call this tool rather than relying on memory, citing frequent changes. No explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_vehicleCheck a UK vehicle by number plateARead-onlyInspect
Free DVLA-backed check of a UK vehicle from its number plate: London ULEZ compliance, Clean Air Zone compliance, Scottish LEZ, MOT status and road tax status, plus make/colour confirmation. Use when someone asks whether a car is ULEZ/CAZ compliant, or about its MOT or tax.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vrn | Yes | UK number plate (VRN), e.g. KM71AEA. Spaces are fine. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and description matches by calling it a 'check'. Description adds specific return details (ULEZ, CAZ, LEZ, MOT, tax) beyond 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?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose, zero waste, includes example plate. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers all necessary context for correct invocation.
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 has 100% coverage with clear description of 'vrn'. Description only repeats 'from its number plate', adding no new semantic 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 specifies 'Free DVLA-backed check of a UK vehicle from its number plate' and lists exact capabilities (ULEZ, CAZ, LEZ, MOT, tax, make/colour). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like charge_info.
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?
Explicit use case is given: 'Use when someone asks whether a car is ULEZ/CAZ compliant, or about its MOT or tax.' No explicit when-not, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_chargesList UK tolls & road chargesARead-onlyInspect
Lists every UK pay-later ANPR toll and road charge (Dartford Crossing, London Congestion Charge, ULEZ, Blackwall & Silvertown tunnels, M6 Toll, Clean Air Zones, airport drop-off charges, and more) with the price and the penalty for missing payment. Use to discover which schemes exist and the ids accepted by charge_info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose read-only behavior. It adds that the tool lists prices and penalties, which is helpful beyond the annotation.
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 clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and scope. No wasted words.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what is listed (charges with price and penalty) and its use case (discovering schemes and IDs).
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?
There are no parameters, so the description naturally does not add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.
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 title and description clearly state the tool lists UK tolls and road charges including specific examples (Dartford Crossing, ULEZ, etc.). It also explains the purpose: to discover schemes and IDs needed by charge_info.
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 states to use this tool to discover which schemes exist and the ids for charge_info. It implies when to use it relative to the sibling tool, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention check_vehicle.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!