Gondola Award Travel Search

get_flight_points

Read-only

Collect award (miles/points) pricing for a flight search that reported pending_sources. Call this after search_flights when you set points: true and the response came back with pending_sources — those are the loyalty programs still being scraped. Returns per-program results: cash itineraries paired with their award price and cents-per-point, plus award-only itineraries the cash search did not surface. A program reporting "timeout" has no answer yet and can be asked again; "no_results" means that program genuinely has no award availability on this route.

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": {
      "search_id": "<search_id>",
      "departure_date": "<departure_date>"
    },
    "name": "get_flight_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`test`	No	Use supplier test credentials. Available only to approved self-accounts; listed accounts default to test mode.
`search_id`	Yes	The search_id returned by the search_flights call.
`departure_date`	Yes	The departure date of that search, YYYY-MM-DD. The same value you passed to search_flights.
`pending_sources`	No	The pending_sources from that search_flights response, passed back unchanged. Without it every supported program is polled, including ones that were never searched.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / test

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Use supplier test credentials. Available only to approved self-accounts; listed accounts default to test mode.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining the two status outcomes: 'timeout' means retryable, 'no_results' means genuinely unavailable. That retry semantics is the key behavioral fact and it is disclosed. It does not mention cost, rate limits, or latency of the polling, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then trigger condition, then return shape, then status semantics — a sensible order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the closing sentence on timeout/no_results is long but justifies itself as retry guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Even though an output schema exists, the description still characterizes the return shape (cash itineraries paired with award price and cents-per-point, plus award-only itineraries), which is exactly the level of detail an agent needs to decide whether to call this or fall back. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by defining what pending_sources actually represents ('the loyalty programs still being scraped') and the consequence of omitting it. The schema already carries the pass-back-unchanged instruction, so the gain is modest rather than decisive.

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 — 'Collect award (miles/points) pricing for a flight search' — and anchors it to a precise trigger state (pending_sources). An agent can distinguish this from search_flights, compare_rates, or get_flight_credits without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing rule: 'Call this after search_flights when you set points: true and the response came back with pending_sources.' The precondition is unambiguous and the tool is clearly not meant to be called standalone, which is the main misuse risk.

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

All Gondola Award Travel Search tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.