Skip to main content
Glama

get current seat

get_current_seat
Read-onlyIdempotent

get current seat. Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seatIdNo
seatNameNo
sourceLocaleNo
targetMarketNo
contentLocaleNo
marketContextNo
targetMarketsNo
contentLocalesNo
defaultContentLocaleNo
marketLanguageProfileNo
resolvedContentLocaleNo
languageVariantGroupIdNo
requestedOutputLocalesNo
supportedContentLocalesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
metaYes
errorNo
statusYes
assistantSummaryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed12 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / contentLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / contentLocales
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 20,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / defaultContentLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / languageVariantGroupId
      Added value: +{
      +  "maxLength": 160,
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / marketContext
      Added value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "currency": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "targetMarket": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "targetMarkets": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "timeZone": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / marketLanguageProfile
      Added value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "propertyNames": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestedOutputLocales
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 20,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / resolvedContentLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / sourceLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / supportedContentLocales
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 20,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetMarket
      Added value: +{
      +  "maxLength": 160,
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "maxLength": 160,
      +    "minLength": 1,
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 50,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description meaningfully adds that execution is synchronous, task support is forbidden, and that the returned JSON is internal orchestration state that should be summarized via assistantSummary rather than shown raw. This is genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is compact and readable, but most of it is output-formatting policy that reads like shared boilerplate rather than tool-specific definition. Front-loading is wasted on a name restatement instead of purpose or parameter meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but with 14 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no usage guidance the definition leaves the agent unable to determine which inputs to supply. For a 14-parameter tool this is a significant shortfall.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There are 14 input parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — not even the obvious seatId/seatName selector or the locale/market fields. The only mention of IDs concerns output presentation ('Mention IDs only when useful'), which does not help an agent populate any input.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The only purpose statement is 'get current seat,' which restates the tool name and title verbatim. It gives no distinguishing detail versus siblings like get_current_user, leanriq_current_seat, or list_accessible_seats, so an agent cannot tell what 'seat' means or how this differs without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as leanriq_select_seat or get_current_user. The 'suggest the next best LeanrIQ action' line is generic advice, not a selection condition for this tool.

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