FlightSeatmap
Server Details
Look up airline seat maps, find the best seats, and manage seat alerts from your AI assistant.
- 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 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Multiple tools serve very similar purposes (get_seatmap, find_best_seats, interactive_seat_finder) with overlapping descriptions, making it difficult for an agent to select the appropriate one. Their descriptions attempt to differentiate by highlighting interactivity or guidance, but the core functionality largely overlaps.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_seat_alert, get_seatmap, list_seat_alerts), but two tools break the pattern: discover_more_flight_tools and interactive_seat_finder. The naming is somewhat inconsistent, though still readable.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing seatmap exploration and alert management. It covers the essential operations without being overwhelming.
The tool surface covers core workflows: flight search, seatmap viewing, seat finding, alerts (create/list/delete), and seat reviews. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of an update seat alert or add review tool, but these do not severely hinder typical use cases.
Available Tools
10 toolscreate_seat_alertCreate Seat AlertAInspect
Create a seat alert that notifies you by email when a matching seat becomes available on a specific flight. Supports preferences like window, aisle, exit row, specific seat, adjacent seats, and class availability. Requires authentication. The flight must already be in our database — use search_flight first if not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cabin_class | Yes | Cabin class to monitor | |
| flight_date | No | Flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Must be within 60 days. | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1', 'AA716' | |
| specific_seat | No | Required when seat_preference is 'specific' (e.g. '12A') | |
| seat_preference | Yes | Seat preference to alert on | |
| adjacent_seats_count | No | Required when seat_preference is 'adjacent_seats' or 'minimum_seats' (2-9) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses authentication requirements and the need for the flight to exist. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, what happens on duplicate alerts, or how alerts are managed. The core behavior (email notification on match) is clear.
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 the main purpose and features, second adds prerequisites. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Excellent structure.
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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, authentication, and supported preferences. It does not explain return values (e.g., alert ID), but that is not critical for invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining prerequisites for flight_number (must exist in database) and implying the role of specific_seat when seat_preference is 'specific'. It does not repeat parameter details but adds necessary context 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a seat alert') and the resource ('seat alert'). It specifies the purpose: to notify by email when a matching seat becomes available on a specific flight. The list of supported preferences distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_seat_alert or list_seat_alerts.
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 provides clear context: 'Requires authentication' and 'The flight must already be in our database — use search_flight first if not.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use a sibling. It does not explicitly name alternatives for modifying or deleting alerts, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete_seat_alertDelete Seat AlertAInspect
Delete a seat alert by its ID. Use list_seat_alerts to find the alert ID. Requires authentication. Asks for confirmation before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes | ID of the seat alert to delete |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: requires authentication and asks for confirmation before deletion, indicating a destructive action with guardrails.
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?
Three sentences, each providing distinct value: action, prerequisite, and behavioral notes. No redundancy or fluff.
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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, authentication, and confirmation. Could optionally mention success/failure feedback.
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% (one parameter with description). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, confirming the parameter is the ID.
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?
Description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (seat alert by ID), and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like create_seat_alert and list_seat_alerts.
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?
It explicitly advises using list_seat_alerts to find the alert ID, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
discover_more_flight_toolsDiscover More Flight & Travel MCP ToolsAInspect
Discover other flight & travel MCP servers you can add to your client. Lists complementary remote MCPs covering award flights, airport delays/wait times, and lounges — with one-line install URLs. Call this when the user asks about points/miles, airport delays/security waits, baggage rankings, lounges, or 'what other flight tools are there?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the output (lists MCP servers and install URLs) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate but lacks extra context.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. It is efficient with no wasted words.
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's simplicity (no inputs, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. It does not detail the output format, but for a discovery tool, the context is 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?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description need not add parameter semantics.
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's purpose: discovering other flight & travel MCP servers, listing complementary tools covering award flights, airport delays, and lounges with install URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on seat alerts and flight search.
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 explicitly provides context for when to invoke this tool, such as when the user asks about points/miles, airport delays, or 'what other flight tools are there?'. It does not mention when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_best_seatsFind Best SeatsBInspect
Find the best available seats on a flight matching user preferences like window, aisle, extra legroom, exit row, quiet zone, etc. Returns a ranked list of matching seats with interactive drill-down into seat details. Also renders an interactive seatmap with recommended seats highlighted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cabin_class | No | Optional cabin class filter | |
| flight_date | No | Optional flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| preferences | Yes | Seat preferences to match | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it returns a ranked list and renders an interactive seatmap, providing some behavioral insight. However, with no annotations, it does not address read/write nature, authentication needs, or side effects, leaving gaps for the agent.
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?
Three clear sentences, no fluff, but slightly verbose. Could combine the last two sentences for tighter structure. Content is 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 no output schema, the description should clarify return format (e.g., JSON, image, interactive widget). It mentions 'interactive drill-down' and 'renders interactive seatmap' but does not specify output type, potentially confusing the AI agent. Also lacks details on prerequisites like flight data availability.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter details beyond listing example preferences, which are already covered by the schema's enum. Minimal added value.
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 it finds best available seats matching user preferences and returns a ranked list, which is specific. However, it does not sufficiently differentiate from sibling tools like 'interactive_seat_finder' or 'get_seatmap', as it also mentions rendering an interactive seatmap, potentially causing confusion.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_seatmap', 'interactive_seat_finder', or 'get_seat_info'. The description implies it's for personalized seat selection but offers no exclusion criteria or context for sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_seat_infoGet Seat InfoAInspect
Get detailed information about a specific seat on a flight, including characteristics (window, aisle, legroom, etc.), cabin class, availability, and pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_date | No | Optional flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| seat_number | Yes | Seat number, e.g. '12A', '1F', '32K' | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists key behavioral traits (characteristics, availability, pricing) and implies a read operation. With no annotations, it carries the full burden; it is transparent but could mention error handling or permissions.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose and details without any waste. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description adequately outlines the returned information categories. It could be more specific about the format of characteristics, but remains reasonably complete for a simple lookup 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 each parameter already described in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond confirming seat and flight identification.
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 retrieves detailed seat information including characteristics, cabin class, availability, and pricing. It differentiates from siblings like get_seatmap and find_best_seats by focusing on a specific seat's details.
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 fetching details on a known seat but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_seat_reviews or interactive_seat_finder. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_seatmapGet Flight Seat MapAInspect
Get the seat map for a flight from our database. Shows all seats, cabin classes, characteristics, and availability as both text and an interactive visual seatmap. The interactive app lets users click seats for details, filter by cabin, and find best seats. This returns cached data — for fresh/updated data, use search_flight with your API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_date | No | Optional flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format for date-specific configuration | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number including airline code, e.g. 'QF1', 'AA716', 'BA178', 'EK1' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that data is cached, which is a crucial behavioral trait. Could be improved by clarifying authentication requirements for this tool, but overall sufficient.
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 with clear front-loading of purpose, no wasted words, and logical flow.
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?
No output schema, but description adequately explains return content (seats, classes, etc.) and mentions interactive app. Completeness is high for a read-only tool with clear scope.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (flight_number, flight_date). Description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?
Clearly states it retrieves seat map for a flight, detailing what it shows (seats, cabin classes, characteristics, availability, interactive visual seatmap). Distinguishes from siblings like find_best_seats or get_seat_info.
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?
Explicitly notes that it returns cached data and directs users to search_flight with API key for fresh/updated data, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance along with an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_seat_reviewsGet Seat ReviewsAInspect
Get user-submitted reviews for a flight, optionally filtered to a specific seat. Shows ratings, comments, seat number, cabin, and helpfulness votes. Free — no auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seat_number | No | Optional seat number to filter reviews (e.g. '12A') | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the output includes ratings, comments, seat number, cabin, and helpfulness votes. Also notes it's free and auth-free. Does not mention pagination or rate limits, but basic behavior is well covered.
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 extraneous information. Front-loaded with the main action and key details.
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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter option, and returned fields. Missing mention of pagination or empty results, but overall adequate.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only reinforces the optionality of 'seat_number'. No additional semantic value beyond 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?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'user-submitted reviews for a flight', and the optional filter by seat. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_seat_info' (seat specs) and 'get_seatmap' (seat map).
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?
States 'Free — no auth required', indicating no authentication barrier. Does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives, but context is clear for a read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
interactive_seat_finderInteractive Seat FinderAInspect
Guided seat finder that walks you through choosing the perfect seat step-by-step. Asks about cabin class and seat preferences interactively, then shows ranked results with drill-down into seat details. Best tool when the user wants help finding a seat but hasn't specified preferences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_date | No | Optional flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1', 'AA716' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It describes the interactive, step-by-step process but does not state if it is read-only or whether it modifies any state. The interactivity context is useful but incomplete.
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 superfluous information. First sentence explains what the tool does, second gives usage guidance. 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?
Given the tool's interactive nature and lack of output schema, the description conveys the core flow but could benefit from details on interaction steps or expected responses. Still, it provides enough to understand the tool's role.
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% and description does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents both parameters.
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 is a guided step-by-step seat finder that interacts with the user, distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_best_seats' or 'get_seatmap'.
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?
Explicitly says 'Best tool when the user wants help finding a seat but hasn't specified preferences,' providing clear context. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the positive guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_seat_alertsList Seat AlertsAInspect
List all your seat alerts (active and inactive). Shows which seats you're being notified about, priority, days until flight, and last check time. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only adds 'Requires authentication' and implies a read operation. It does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or what happens when no alerts exist. Minimal behavioral context provided.
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 front-load the action and output fields. Every word adds value; no redundancy. Efficient structure for an agent to quickly parse.
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 parameterless list tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and an important prerequisite (auth). Output schema is absent but the description compensates by listing output fields. No missing contextual elements.
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?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info (unnecessary), so score remains 4.
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 'List all your seat alerts (active and inactive)' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete by focusing on listing. Additionally, it specifies the output fields (seats, priority, days until flight, last check time), leaving no ambiguity.
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 mentions 'Requires authentication' as a prerequisite, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list alerts vs. create or delete them). No when-not-to-use or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_flightSearch FlightAInspect
Search for a flight and get fresh seatmap data. Requires authentication — add your API key to your MCP config headers, or sign in via OAuth. Paid plan users can fetch new flights not yet in our database. Uses a search credit. Will ask for confirmation before using a credit. Returns an interactive seatmap app with the results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_date | No | Flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to today) | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1', 'AA716' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, search credit usage, confirmation before credit use, and the return of an interactive app. It could add details on rate limits or credit insufficiency, but overall it's thorough.
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 six sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then credit details, and finally output. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., combine credit sentences) but is well-structured and avoids unnecessary repetition.
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 2 parameters, simple schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, credit mechanics, and return type. It doesn't detail the 'interactive seatmap app' beyond calling it that, but it's adequate for a search 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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema—only mentioning 'flight number' implicitly through 'search for a flight' but not elaborating on flight_date or providing usage hints.
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 'Search for a flight and get fresh seatmap data,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_seatmap, create_seat_alert) by emphasizing 'fresh' data and returning an interactive seatmap app.
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 when to use (to get fresh seatmap data, especially for new flights for paid users) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives like get_seatmap. The context is implied but not systematic.
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!