Skip to main content
Glama

upgrade-agent

by ai.upgradeagent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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?'). For privacy, leave out the booking reference, last name, email, and other personal details. Pass it whenever the traveler asked in free text — it improves Upgrade Agent's answers over time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / travelerQuestion / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"The traveler's request in their own words, verbatim (e.g. 'can I upgrade my Swiss flight to business?'). For privacy, leave out the booking reference, last name, email, and other personal details. Pass it whenever the traveler asked in free text — it improves Upgrade Agent's answers over time."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / travelerQuestion
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance transparency beyond them, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and contents, then adds the comparison and input format. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the input format (IATA code or name) and outlines the response content (products, loyalty, cabin paths, access, summary). It does not mention error cases or pagination, but these are not critical for this simple info-retrieval tool. It adequately covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (carrier and travelerQuestion), so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the carrier format example ('AC' or 'Air Canada') which is essentially the same as the schema's example, adding no new meaning. It does not elaborate on travelerQuestion beyond the schema's privacy note. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema already covers semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full upgrade profile for one operator,' enumerating the specific contents (products with URL, loyalty program, cabin paths, access, summary). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ask_upgrade_agent by noting it is 'More detailed.' This provides unambiguous purpose and differentiation.

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 a clear comparison to ask_upgrade_agent ('More detailed than ask_upgrade_agent'), implying it should be used when a fuller profile is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to other siblings like list_partners or check_upgrade_eligibility. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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
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.

Resources