SeaWeb

register_standing_query

Travel Product B — register a standing disruption query: continuous real-time monitoring of geo_ids for disruption_types (subset of: strike, weather, closure, unrest, health, infrastructure, safety). expires_at is an optional future ISO-8601 timestamp with timezone. Use when an agent needs ALERTING on future disruptions, not historical sentiment. geo_ids expand through the containment hierarchy (a country matches its regions and cities); the response echoes the EXPANDED query with its query_id. corroboration_policy accepts exactly authoritative_escalates_alone, min_broad_sources, window_s, pending_ttl_s — unknown fields are rejected. Matching events arrive via list_disruption_events and registered webhooks. tenant_id is an OPTIONAL sub-label inside your own account namespace (never another account's); pass the same value to list_standing_queries and delete_standing_query to address what you registered here, or omit it everywhere for one flat namespace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`geo_ids`	Yes
`tenant_id`	No
`expires_at`	No
`lang_scope`	No
`min_severity`	No
`disruption_types`	Yes
`corroboration_policy`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Provides detailed behavioral context: geo_ids expand through containment hierarchy, response echoes expanded query, corroboration_policy rejects unknown fields, expires_at format, and tenant_id namespace semantics. This goes well beyond the minimal annotations.

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?

Despite being a dense single paragraph, every sentence adds operational value. However, the structure could benefit from bullet points for readability; it's long but not wasteful.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, usage, response behavior, and parameter nuances. Missing details on lang_scope and min_severity prevent a perfect score, but overall it's highly informative for a complex tool with no output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Description explains geo_ids, disruption_types, expires_at, corroboration_policy, and tenant_id in depth, but does not mention lang_scope or min_severity, which remain undefined by the schema (0% coverage).

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it registers a standing disruption query for continuous real-time monitoring of geo_ids for specific disruption_types. It distinguishes from historical sentiment tools and mentions the response echoes the expanded query, differentiating it from sibling webhook registration.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states 'Use when an agent needs ALERTING on future disruptions, not historical sentiment.' Also explains how to retrieve results via list_disruption_events and webhooks, and how tenant_id should be passed consistently to list/delete standing queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SeaWeb tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap among search, search_web, search_restaurants, and search_salons, as well as between filter_restaurants/filter_salons and search with constraints. However, descriptions clarify the intended vertical or corpus, and entity getters are distinct. The overlap is manageable but could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names mostly follow a get_/list_/search_/register_/delete_/submit_/vote_ pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations like 'recall', 'remember', 'research', and 'travel_health' are less predictable but still readable. Overall consistent and clear.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical well-scoped range. While the server covers multiple subdomains (search, travel disruptions, memory, feedback, research), the sheer number may overwhelm agents and suggests potential consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: search and entity retrieval for restaurants/salons, disruption monitoring with standing queries and webhooks (register/list/delete), research submission/polling, and memory/feedback mechanisms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel for research jobs, no explicit entity list endpoint), but these are workable and do not break typical agent tasks.

Resources

Need Help?