Skip to main content
Glama

Tfl

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Line Status

line_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Current service status for London transport lines. Pass either a comma-separated list of modes (e.g. "tube,dlr") OR a specific lineId (e.g. "victoria", "central"). Returns each line with lineStatuses + statusSeverityDescription (e.g. "Good Service", "Minor Delays").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modesNoComma-separated transport modes: tube, dlr, overground, elizabeth-line, bus, tram, national-rail. Used when lineId is not given.
lineIdNoSpecific line id, e.g. "victoria", "central", "elizabeth". Takes precedence over modes.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return format (lineStatuses + statusSeverityDescription) and giving example values like 'Good Service'. This is appropriate additional context.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the purpose, then parameter usage, then return format. Perfectly concise for the information needed.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format and parameter usage. It doesn't explain edge cases like missing parameters, but the schema shows they are not required. Slightly more detail on default behavior could improve it, but it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that modes and lineId are alternatives and that lineId takes precedence. It also provides examples, which clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 states 'Current service status for London transport lines', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'disruptions' which focus on incidents. The tool is clearly for querying live service status.

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 explains that you must pass either 'modes' or 'lineId', with examples. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disruptions' or 'arrivals', but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage context.

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

All Tfl 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools with similar functions, causing potential confusion. Most other tools are clearly differentiated, but the overlap in query and betting tools reduces clarity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and some are very short (arrivals). Lengths vary widely, and there is no uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a coherent server; the scope is too broad, spanning transport, data lookups, prediction markets, and utilities. This suggests a lack of focus, making the server feel like a bundled collection rather than a well-scoped toolkit.

Completeness3/5

The server covers multiple domains but lacks depth. London transport tools are partial (e.g., no real-time tube positions), and domains like weather or stock quotes rely on the ask_pipeworx meta-tool rather than dedicated tools. The surface is broad but not comprehensively complete in any area.

Resources