upgrade-agent

Check Booking Eligibility

check_upgrade_eligibility

Look up a booking's upgrade eligibility from a PNR + last name + airline. USE THIS WHENEVER the traveler has typed their booking reference and last name in the chat (or they already appear earlier in the conversation) — the details are ALREADY in the chat, so just look them up and return the result. Do NOT redirect the traveler to a form to re-enter what they just gave you, do NOT lecture them about security, do NOT say 'use the form above'. Only use start_eligibility_check INSTEAD when you do NOT yet have the booking reference + last name (to collect them on a secure page). Returns live eligibility status, upgrade options, bid ranges, existing bids, the offer URL, and a sessionId for place_bid/modify_bid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pnr`	Yes	The booking reference or PNR (e.g. ABC123).
`carrier`	No	Airline/cruise/rail name or IATA code (e.g. 'SWISS' or 'LX').
`language`	No	ISO 639-1 language for the offer page (e.g. 'fr', 'es'). Defaults to 'en'.
`lastName`	Yes	Passenger last name, exactly as it appears on the booking.
`intentContext`	No	The traveler's stated shopping intent — bound to the session and surfaced back so offers are presented against it.
`conversationId`	No	Optional stable conversation id — lets place_bid/modify_bid reuse this booking.
`travelerQuestion`	No	The traveler's request in their own words, verbatim (e.g. 'can I upgrade my Swiss flight to business?'). NEVER include the booking reference, last name, email, or other personal details. Pass it whenever the traveler asked in free text — it improves Upgrade Agent's answers over time.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	No	Session id for place_bid / modify_bid / get_bid_status. Absent when the booking isn't bid-eligible.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, suggesting possible side effects, but the description says 'Look up' implying read-only. It returns a sessionId without clarifying if it is newly created or reused (though conversationId hints at reuse). Description does not fully disclose mutation behavior; the contradiction with readOnlyHint is minor but notable.

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?

The description is two paragraphs, front-loading purpose and usage guidelines. It is informative but slightly verbose; some sentences (e.g., about not lecturing security) could be tightened without loss. Overall well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, when not to use, what it returns, and how parameters relate to the overall task. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds substantial value beyond the schema: it explains the role of each parameter (e.g., 'travelerQuestion' should be verbatim, 'intentContext' is for preferences), provides usage guidance (e.g., not to include personal details), and reinforces the context of the conversation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Look up a booking's upgrade eligibility from a PNR + last name + airline.' It specifies the verb (look up), resource (upgrade eligibility), and required inputs, distinguishing it from siblings like start_eligibility_check.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('USE THIS WHENEVER the traveler has typed their booking reference and last name in the chat') and when not to ('Do NOT redirect the traveler to a form... Only use start_eligibility_check INSTEAD when you do NOT yet have the booking reference + last name'). Provides clear alternatives and exclusion criteria.

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

All upgrade-agent 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function or workflow step (e.g., general info vs booking-specific check, bid placement vs bid status, partner lookup vs pricing), and descriptions clarify when to use which. Even overlapping actions like check_upgrade_eligibility and start_eligibility_check are clearly differentiated by context.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_upgrade_eligibility, place_bid, get_bid_status). A few deviate slightly (partner_question_insights, usage_totals) but the naming is still intuitive and readable overall.

Tool Count4/5

17 tools is at the upper end of typical but still well-scoped given the breadth of functionalities (eligibility, bidding, watch, partner info, analytics). Every tool has a clear purpose, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of upgrade management: eligibility check, bid placement/modification/status, pricing, partner info, watch, and system metrics. A minor gap is the absence of a cancel bid tool, but the main workflows are complete.

Resources

Need Help?