upgrade-agent

Mint Eligibility Session (internal)

mint_eligibility_session

Internal helper for the inline eligibility form: creates a secure session and returns its id. No UI; agents should use start_eligibility_check instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`carrier`	No	Operator name/IATA if known.
`language`	No	ISO 639-1 language (default 'en').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`carrier`	No
`sessionId`	No	Secure eligibility session id.
`carrierIata`	No
`carrierLogo`	No
`carrierName`	No
`carrierAccent`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context that the tool is internal and creates a session, which is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). No contradictions; the description supplements the annotations well.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Perfectly concise.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states the core action and return value, sufficient for an internal helper tool.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional information about parameter meanings or usage beyond the schema.

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 creates a secure session and returns its ID, and distinguishes it from sibling start_eligibility_check by specifying it is an internal helper with no UI.

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?

Explicitly directs agents to use start_eligibility_check instead, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and a named alternative.

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?