TfL Journey Status MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TFL_API_KEY | Yes | Your TfL API key from the TfL API Portal (https://api.tfl.gov.uk/) |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_line_statusC | Get the status of a TfL line from the Transport for London Unified API. |
| get_line_status_detailC | Get the status and details of a TfL line. |
| plan_journeyB | Plan journeys between two locations using the TfL Journey Planner. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The tools 'get_line_status' and 'get_line_status_detail' have significant overlap in purpose, both retrieving line status information with only a vague distinction in detail level. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to choose between them, as the descriptions don't clearly differentiate when to use each tool.
All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern with snake_case. 'get_line_status' and 'get_line_status_detail' share the same verb prefix, while 'plan_journey' uses a different but still clear verb. The naming is mostly consistent with only minor deviation in verb choice.
With only 3 tools, this server feels thin for a transportation domain that typically involves multiple operations. While the core functions are present, the count is borderline low for what could be a more comprehensive TfL API surface covering additional journey planning or status features.
For a TfL journey status server, there are significant gaps in coverage. Missing are tools for station information, arrival predictions, service disruptions beyond line status, and journey planning variations (like alternatives or real-time updates). The surface provides only basic line status and journey planning, leaving many common transportation queries unaddressed.