Skip to main content
Glama

check_route

Read-only

Check current conditions along a major California highway corridor.

The flagship trip-check tool: give it a start and end place and it
returns everything active along that stretch right now - CHP incidents,
lane closures physically in place, chain controls, and wildfires within
~10 miles - ordered by miles from the start, plus a summary.

ALWAYS pass from_coords and to_coords ("lat,lon") when you know where
the places are - for landmarks, small towns, or anything not a major
city they are required for a good answer. Coordinates do two things:
they let unlisted places resolve to the nearest corridor (e.g. "Alice's
Restaurant" snaps to I-280 on the Peninsula), and they CLIP the route to
the span actually being driven, so a trip to a mid-corridor destination
doesn't report events beyond it.

Corridors covered: I-80 Sacramento-Reno, US-50 to South Lake Tahoe, I-5,
US-101, SR-17, SR-99, SR-1, I-15 to Vegas, Bay Area freeways, Tahoe-area
routes. This is NOT a general router: if nothing matches (even with
coordinates), the response lists the covered corridors; fall back to the
filtered tools with center= for anything else.

Freshness: CHP incidents refresh about once a minute; closures, chain
controls, and fires are on a 5-minute cache. Current conditions only -
this cannot forecast tomorrow's weather or closures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
to_placeYes
to_coordsNo
from_placeYes
from_coordsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by providing freshness details (CHP incidents ~1 minute, others ~5 minutes), return format (events ordered by miles, plus summary), and behavioral constraints (coordinates clip the route, cannot forecast). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true or openWorldHint=true.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening, followed by coordinated guidance, corridor coverage, and freshness info. While every sentence adds value, it is somewhat lengthy; a bit more brevity could improve conciseness.

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?

For a complex tool with optional coordinates, multiple corridors, and freshness considerations, the description is complete. It covers when to use, how to use coordinates, what corridors are supported, data freshness, and limitations. No output schema exists, but the description states the return includes events and summary, which is sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains the purpose of all four parameters: required from_place and to_place, optional from_coords and to_coords as 'lat,lon'. It details what coordinates do—resolving unlisted places and clipping the route—which is critical for effective use.

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 clearly states the tool 'checks current conditions along a major California highway corridor' using the specific verb 'check' and resource 'route conditions'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself the 'flagship trip-check tool' and later instructing to fall back to filtered tools for other corridors.

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?

Explicit instructions on when to use: 'give it a start and end place'. Provides guidance on passing coordinates ('ALWAYS pass from_coords and to_coords when you know where the places are') and explains the role of coordinates. States covered corridors and explicitly says 'This is NOT a general router', advising fallback to filtered tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of road conditions: region summary, route-specific, cameras, chains, incidents, closures, out-of-state, signs, wildfires, and ranking. Even related tools like check_region and check_route have clear, differentiated purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_region, check_route, get_cameras, etc.). The verbs 'check' and 'get' are used appropriately for different actions, maintaining predictability.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool provides a specific, non-redundant function for the domain of California road conditions, fitting perfectly within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major aspects: incidents, closures, chains, wildfires, cameras, signs, and region/route summaries. Missing dedicated traffic flow/speed data or construction schedules, but overall robust for trip planning and condition awareness.