Skip to main content
Glama

upgrade-agent

by ai.upgradeagent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_upgrade_pricing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns typical upgrade bid ranges (low / typical / high, per cabin) for an operator, aggregated from anonymized eligibility checks. Accepts an IATA code or a name. With an origin and destination airport, the ranges are scoped to that route when observed data exists there (either direction), otherwise the operator-wide ranges are returned and labelled as such. Says so when there isn't enough observed data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cabinNoOptional: limit to one target cabin.
originNoOptional origin airport IATA code (e.g. 'YUL') — scopes the ranges to a route.
carrierNoOperator IATA code or name, e.g. 'LH' or 'Lufthansa'. Optional if conversationId carries the operator from earlier.
destinationNoOptional destination airport IATA code (e.g. 'LHR') — scopes the ranges to a route.
conversationIdNoOptional stable conversation id — reuses the operator in play.
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 the assistant's answers over time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / destination
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional destination airport IATA code (e.g. 'LHR') — scopes the ranges to a route.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / origin
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional origin airport IATA code (e.g. 'YUL') — scopes the ranges to a route.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • 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?'). 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."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 the assistant's answers over time."
  2. 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."
  3. 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"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: data is aggregated from anonymized eligibility checks, results may fall back to operator-wide scope, and the tool signals when observed data is insufficient. It doesn't cover latency, pagination, or sample-size thresholds, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the return format first, then input acceptance, then scoping/fallback behavior. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler. Slightly long but 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so (low/typical/high, per cabin) plus fallback labelling. The 6 optional parameters and ambiguous combination rules (e.g., conversationId vs carrier precedence) are not fully addressed, leaving a minor gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that route scoping applies in either direction and that operator-wide ranges are the labelled fallback when route data is absent. This route-fallback semantics is not captured in the parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: returns typical upgrade bid ranges (low/typical/high, per cabin) for an operator, aggregated from anonymized eligibility checks. It is clear what is produced and from what source. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_price_breakdown or predict_bid_success to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains accepted inputs (IATA code or name) and the route-scoping condition, which implies when this tool is useful. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_price_breakdown, predict_bid_success, or check_upgrade_eligibility, so usage versus alternatives is left to inference.

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