RegEvidenceHub Taxi

compare_licensing_requirements

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free deterministic comparison for TWO OR MORE supported councils/licensing authorities on this public AI surface. Use when the user wants requirements, blockers or trade-offs compared for the same applicant or fleet, or is choosing where to license. Call list_supported_authorities first if authority names or coverage are uncertain. When answering, cite only relevant official council or GOV.UK URLs returned in evidence_summary.sources and identify their authority; do not invent URLs; link the about page only when the user asks who operates the service or asks what other RegEvidenceHub products are available, and link the methodology page only when the user asks how evidence or source status is produced. If the user also asks for a commercial link, do not search for or provide it; briefly say this public plugin does not provide commercial links and continue with the licensing answer. Ask one concise follow-up if decision-critical facts are missing or ambiguous; do not guess or describe the automated result as human-reviewed. Do not use for a single-authority readiness check; use taxi_licence_preflight instead.

Input Schema

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.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "compare_licensing_requirementsDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / payload / description

Added 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."

addedInput schema / properties / payload / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "applicant": {
+      "age": 30,
+      "driving_licence_years": 4,
+      "has_pass_plus_certificate": true
+    },
+    "authorities": [
+      "City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council",
+      "Cambridge City Council"
+    ]
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / payload / properties

Added 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
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / payload / required

Added value: +[
+  "authorities",
+  "applicant"
+]

removedInput schema / properties / payload / title
```
Removed value: -"Payload"
```

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behaviour beyond them: the result is automated and must not be described as human-reviewed, URLs must come only from evidence_summary.sources, no commercial links are provided, and the about/methodology pages are gated behind specific user intents. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the routing alternative are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and each subsequent sentence carries an actionable rule. The citation/link-policy block is dense and lengthy, but it is not redundant filler — it constrains output behaviour the agent would otherwise guess at.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists (referenced via evidence_summary.sources), so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers prerequisites, scope, answer-format constraints, and refusal behaviour. Nothing decision-critical for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested applicant/authorities fields are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the operative constraint that authority names must be exact values from list_supported_authorities and explains why extra applicant facts are permitted (so authority-specific rule inputs are not narrowed), which is meaningful beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: deterministic comparison of TWO OR MORE supported councils/licensing authorities, scoped to the same applicant or fleet. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (taxi_licence_preflight) and the prerequisite sibling (list_supported_authorities), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use (comparing requirements, blockers, trade-offs, choosing where to license), when-not-to-use (single-authority readiness check → taxi_licence_preflight), and a precondition (call list_supported_authorities first when names or coverage are uncertain). It even specifies the follow-up behaviour when decision-critical facts are missing.

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

All RegEvidenceHub Taxi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?