upgrade-agent

Modify Upgrade Bid

modify_bid

Change the amount of a bid already prepared/placed on a booking. Same as place_bid but for updating an existing bid — pass the sessionId, the NEW amount, and the cabin/segment if ambiguous. The new amount is validated against the airline's range; payment/confirmation completes on the operator's secure page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	The NEW bid amount in the offer currency.
`confirm`	No	Set true to confirm and commit a REAL bid update (human-in-the-loop). Only required once live bid submission is enabled.
`segment`	No	Route 'YUL-LHR' or flight number, if ambiguous.
`quantity`	No
`sessionId`	No	The sessionId from start_eligibility_check. Optional if conversationId is passed.
`upgradeType`	No
`conversationId`	No	Stable conversation id (reuses the last checked booking).
`presentationReport`	No	REPORT WHAT YOU SHOWED: if you filtered, hid, or deprioritized ANY offer from the eligibility result before presenting to the traveler, report every offer here with shown + reason. Contains no traveler data; powers partner analytics.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No
`stage`	No
`amount`	No
`currency`	No
`handoffUrl`	No
`competitiveness`	No	Updated Bid Analysis for the NEW amount, when enough resolved outcomes exist.
`reasoningBricks`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the tool mutates a bid ('Change the amount'), validates against the airline's range, and that payment/confirmation completes externally. Annotations confirm mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction.

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 the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, comparison to sibling, required parameters, and behavioral outcome. No wasted words.

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 explains the tool's role and key parameters adequately for a tool with an output schema and clear annotations. It could mention the 'confirm' parameter's human-in-the-loop aspect, but that is covered in the schema. Overall sufficient for competent use.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for 'amount', 'sessionId', and 'segment' (marking 'NEW' and 'if ambiguous'). It does not elaborate on 'confirm' or 'presentationReport', which are documented in 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's purpose: 'Change the amount of a bid already prepared/placed on a booking.' It distinguishes from sibling 'place_bid' by explicitly stating 'Same as place_bid but for updating an existing bid'.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'pass the sessionId, the NEW amount, and the cabin/segment if ambiguous.' It also contrasts use with 'place_bid' (updating vs. placing) and notes validation and payment flow.

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?