Skip to main content
Glama

upgrade-agent

by ai.upgradeagent

get_partner_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full upgrade profile for one operator — products offered (with the official page URL), loyalty program, cabin paths, how to access, and summary. More detailed than ask_upgrade_agent. Accepts an IATA code or a name (e.g. 'AC' or 'Air Canada').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
carrierYesOperator IATA code or name, e.g. 'LH' or 'Lufthansa'.
travelerQuestionNoThe 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.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds what fields are returned, which is useful, but does not disclose any potential side effects or limitations beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences: first explains purpose and contents, second explains input format. No filler words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description details the return contents (products, loyalty, etc.) despite no output schema, and distinguishes from one sibling. Annotations are complete. However, given the many sibling tools, it could briefly differentiate from more of them, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description clarifies that 'carrier' accepts an IATA code or name, which adds slightly to the schema. However, the optional 'travelerQuestion' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a minor gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the full upgrade profile for one operator' with detailed contents (products, loyalty, cabin paths, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling 'ask_upgrade_agent' by noting it is 'More detailed'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get a full upgrade profile) and contrasts it with 'ask_upgrade_agent'. It also specifies acceptable input formats (IATA code or name). However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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

All upgrade-agent toolsInspect
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