Skip to main content
Glama

Get a seat map

get_seatmap
Read-onlyIdempotent

One airline layout: cabins with pitch, width and layout, the row features and seat notes as saved, and the best and worst seats the site shows.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "airline": "<airline>",
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_seatmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThe layout's slug, unique within the airline: the aircraft model's slug (787-9), with a suffix when the airline flies it in several layouts (787-9-v2)
airlineYesAirline IATA code (UA), slug or UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful content-level transparency by stating that the result includes cabins with pitch, width, layout, row features, saved seat notes, and best/worst seats.

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 a single compact sentence and is front-loaded with the core resource. The phrasing is slightly fragmentary, but every word contributes information about the returned seat map.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the expected output content well. It does not explain error behavior or full response structure, but no output schema exists and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific resource: a single airline layout. The phrase 'One airline layout' distinguishes it implicitly from list_seatmaps, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The singular 'One airline layout' implies this tool retrieves one specific seat map rather than listing them. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_seatmaps or how to handle cases where the layout is not found.

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.

Resources