seatcanvas
Server Details
SeatCanvas MCP server: pricing, venue capacity estimates, and prefilled seating plans.
- 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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating a plan, estimating capacity, and getting pricing. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'seatcanvas_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, e.g., create_plan, estimate_capacity, get_pricing.
Three tools is a tight but reasonable set for a focused seating planning service. Could be expanded with more CRUD operations, but current count is appropriate for its read-only nature.
Covers planning, estimation, and pricing but lacks update/delete or list functionality. As a read-only helper, it is minimally complete but has notable gaps for full lifecycle management.
Available Tools
3 toolsseatcanvas_create_planCreate a prefilled seating planARead-onlyInspect
Returns a link to a SeatCanvas plan prefilled with a table layout for the given guest count and event type (optional venue dimensions). Opening the link seeds the canvas; nothing is saved until the user signs in. Read-only; deterministic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for the prefilled plan: 'en' (default) or 'es'. | en |
| venue_h | No | Optional venue height/depth in the chosen unit_system; omit to auto-size. | |
| venue_w | No | Optional venue width in the chosen unit_system; omit to auto-size a venue to fit the guests. | |
| event_type | Yes | Event type: 'wedding' (adds a head table), 'quinceanera', 'corporate', or 'other'. | |
| table_type | No | Table shape + seats: 'round-8', 'round-10', 'rect-8', or 'rect-10'. Default 'round-8'. | round-8 |
| guest_count | Yes | Number of guests to seat (positive integer). | |
| unit_system | Yes | Unit for venue dimensions: 'metric' (meters) or 'imperial' (feet). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| guest_count | Yes | Guest count the plan was built for. |
| planner_url | Yes | Prefilled SeatCanvas planner URL. |
| table_count | Yes | Number of tables in the seeded plan (includes the head table for weddings). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that opening the link seeds the canvas but nothing is saved until the user signs in, and that it is read-only and deterministic. This provides full transparency beyond the readOnlyHint 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 extremely concise with two short sentences. Every piece of information is valuable and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description effectively covers the core functionality and behavior (link seeding, no saving). It lacks information about error conditions or when this tool is appropriate, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its purpose.
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?
All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It mentions 'given guest count and event type (optional venue dimensions)', which aligns with the schema but does not add new semantics beyond what is already provided.
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 clearly states that the tool returns a link to a prefilled seating plan for a given guest count and event type. This specific verb-resource combination ('Returns a link') distinguishes it from sibling tools that estimate capacity or get pricing.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for creating a plan link, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seatcanvas_estimate_capacityEstimate venue seating capacityARead-onlyInspect
Estimates how many guests a venue of the given width and height can seat at a chosen table type, and returns a link to a prefilled SeatCanvas plan. Read-only; deterministic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for the prefilled plan: 'en' (default) or 'es'. | en |
| venue_h | Yes | Venue height/depth in the chosen unit_system (meters or feet). | |
| venue_w | Yes | Venue width in the chosen unit_system (meters or feet). | |
| event_type | No | Event type: 'wedding' (adds a head table), 'quinceanera', 'corporate', or 'other'. Default 'other'. | other |
| table_type | No | Table shape + seats: 'round-8', 'round-10', 'rect-8', or 'rect-10'. Default 'round-8'. | round-8 |
| unit_system | Yes | Unit for venue dimensions: 'metric' (meters) or 'imperial' (feet). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| planner_url | Yes | Prefilled SeatCanvas planner URL. |
| raw_capacity | Yes | Honest estimated seating capacity for the venue (may be 0). |
| preview_guest_count | Yes | Guest count used to seed the preview canvas (always >= 1). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it is deterministic and returns a link, providing context 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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral traits. No wasted words; perfectly front-loaded.
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 the output schema exists (per context), the description adequately covers the tool's function and behavior. Only minor gap: doesn't mention that a link is URL or how to interpret it, but the output schema likely covers that.
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% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description only mentions 'venue width and height' and 'table type', adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states it estimates seating capacity from venue dimensions and table type, returning a prefilled plan link. Distinct from sibling tools like 'seatcanvas_create_plan' and 'seatcanvas_get_pricing'.
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?
Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'read-only; deterministic' hint implies safe repeated use, but no direct comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
seatcanvas_get_pricingGet SeatCanvas pricingARead-onlyInspect
Returns SeatCanvas pricing: the free-tier seated-guest limit and the one-time Event Pass price. Read-only; no inputs required beyond an optional response locale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Response language: 'en' (default) or 'es'. | en |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | ISO currency code for the price, e.g. USD. |
| event_pass_price | Yes | One-time Event Pass price (string, from the canonical source). |
| free_guest_limit | Yes | Max seated guests on the free tier. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'read-only' and detailing the output (free-tier limit, Event Pass price). 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second clarifies read-only and input. No wasted words; highly efficient.
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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, output, input, and safety. No gaps given complexity.
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 description coverage is 100% (locale parameter described in schema). The description mentions 'optional response locale' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool 'returns SeatCanvas pricing' with specific items: free-tier seated-guest limit and Event Pass price. This verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools (create, estimate).
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 implies usage for retrieving pricing and notes 'read-only' and 'no inputs required'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context of siblings makes it clear.
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!