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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: plan creation, capacity estimation, and pricing. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent seatcanvas_verb_noun pattern (create_plan, estimate_capacity, get_pricing) with clear verbs and nouns.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's purpose: creating plans, estimating capacity, and retrieving pricing. No tools are extraneous.
The set covers the main domain actions: creating plans, estimating capacity, and getting pricing. Missing possible plan modification tools, but the service is described as read-only and deterministic, so this is acceptable.
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?
Adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: 'seeds the canvas', 'nothing saved until sign-in', 'read-only; deterministic'. Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with key action and constraints. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Adequately describes the tool's purpose and side effects; output schema exists so return value explanation is unnecessary. Could briefly mention the link nature, but sufficient.
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 descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add new meaning or clarify usage beyond what schema provides, so baseline score applies.
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 returns a link to a prefilled seating plan for given guest count and event type, distinguishing itself from siblings 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?
Provides context: the link seeds a canvas and nothing is saved until sign-in, implying use for preview. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references beyond sibling names.
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 the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds 'deterministic' and clarifies it returns a link. This is sufficient but could further describe what happens on invalid inputs (e.g., negative dimensions).
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 with no redundancy. The first sentence concisely captures the core functionality; the second adds safety context. Every word earns its place.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is nearly complete. It covers inputs, output (link), and safety. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior or limits on dimensions.
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 individual parameter descriptions. The tool description summarizes the role of venue dimensions and table type but does not add new semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('estimates') and resource ('seating capacity'), includes key inputs (width, height, table type), and distinguishes itself from siblings (seatcanvas_create_plan, seatcanvas_get_pricing) by focusing on estimation rather than creation or 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 purpose is clear but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like seatcanvas_create_plan (for actual plan creation) or seatcanvas_get_pricing (for cost). Users must infer from sibling names; an explicit guidance sentence would help.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety info. It does mention the optional locale but lacks details about response structure or side effects; however, the output schema covers the return format.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no unnecessary elaboration.
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 and annotations cover safety, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and basic constraints. No additional details are needed for this simple read-only tool.
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 the locale parameter fully described in the schema. The description repeats that the locale is optional and for response language, adding minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 explicitly states the tool returns SeatCanvas pricing, specifying the free-tier seated-guest limit and Event Pass price. It distinguishes from sibling tools like seatcanvas_create_plan (writes) and seatcanvas_estimate_capacity (different read).
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 notes it is read-only and requires no inputs beyond an optional locale, clearly indicating when to use. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context of siblings and the read-only nature provides adequate guidance.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for generating upfront AWS service cost estimates and providing cost insights.5Apache 2.0
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceMCP server that provides tools for automating AWS Pricing Calculator estimate generation.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for Magic: The Gathering card prices, deck analysis, sealed product EV calculations, and investment insights, powered by live data from 5 vendors covering 99K+ cards.21MIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceMCP server for monitoring competitor pricing pages, scraping pricing data into SQLite, and answering plain-language questions about pricing plans via Claude.MIT