SeaWeb

teamwork_preview

Read-onlyIdempotent

Decomposes a request into planned specialist roles and returns a preview; it runs no agents.

Decomposes natural language requests into planned subtasks and returns a preview with specialist roles.

STRICT POLICY: SeaWeb does not perform bookings, reservations, or payment
transactions (booking rail retired 2026-08-04). Any booking attempts are
immediately refused with a booking_retired error.

task: Natural language goal or query for the agent team.
max_agents: Maximum number of specialist roles to plan (default 4, range 1-5).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes
`max_agents`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: no agents are run, previews are returned, and booking/reservation/payment attempts are refused with a booking_retired error. This gives the agent concrete expectations about side effects and policy failures.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates, both saying the tool decomposes requests and returns a preview with specialist roles. The rest is useful and front-loaded, but the redundant opening reduces the conciseness score.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a sufficient high-level picture of the return value ('preview with specialist roles') plus parameters and an important policy constraint. It doesn't describe the exact output structure, but for a low-complexity preview tool this is adequate.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries parameter semantics. It defines task as a natural language goal/query and max_agents as the planner count with a default of 4 and range of 1-5, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it decomposes a request into planned specialist roles and returns a preview. It also explicitly says it runs no agents, which distinguishes it from tools that actually execute agent teams.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context: this tool is for planning/previewing a decomposition, not for executing agents. It does not name alternative tools, but no direct sibling for teamwork preview is present, and the 'runs no agents' clarification provides usable selection guidance.

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: search vs. search_restaurants/search_salons/search_web, get_entity vs. get_restaurant/get_salon/get_details, and agent_job_status vs. research_status all require careful reading to pick correctly. The long descriptions help, but the overlap is real and an agent can easily misroute a call.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean get_/list_/search_/register_/delete_ verb_noun pattern, making the bulk of the surface predictable. A few outliers like recall, remember, teamwork_preview, and travel_health break the pattern but are still readable and not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server and bundles several distinct products — vertical search, web crawl, disruption monitoring, agent memory, and A/B evaluation — into one surface. Even if each subdomain is individually reasonable, the combined count makes the server feel like multiple toolsets mashed together.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are mostly covered: search, extract, get details, register/list/delete standing queries and webhooks, and research jobs all have usable lifecycles. However, there is no update path for standing queries or webhooks, built datasets lack a clear retrieval tool, and research jobs have status but no obvious distinct cancel/list surface.

Resources

Need Help?