list_lounge_visits
Read-onlyDestructive
List the airport lounge visits you've logged to your portfolio.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Award Travel Finder
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'List', which indicates a read-only operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: false. This directly contradicts the non-destructive nature of listing and creates serious ambiguity about whether the tool may mutate state. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations must score 1 and be flagged.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core meaning with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a parameterless listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but the annotation contradiction leaves the safety profile unclear and the overlap with 'lounge_get_my_visits' is unresolved. With no output schema, the description also doesn't clarify what the returned visit objects contain, though listing tools generally carry a modest burden here.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully describes the calling contract. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, making the baseline 4 appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('airport lounge visits'), with a clear scope ('you've logged to your portfolio'). It is unambiguous on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'lounge_get_my_visits', which appears to serve the same purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as 'log_lounge_visit', 'delete_lounge_visit', or especially 'lounge_get_my_visits'. There is no stated context, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools are near-duplicates (log_lounge_visit vs lounge_mark_lounge_visited, delete_lounge_visit vs lounge_delete_visit, audit_hotel_folio vs audit_marriott_folio) and the award-chart tools (get_pricing, get_program_rates, get_partner_award_options, get_program_partner_chart) have unclear boundaries. The three discover_more_flight_tools variants and overlapping lounge/portfolio listers compound the ambiguity, so an agent can easily pick the wrong one.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools use snake_case verb_noun names and many have consistent prefixes (cards_, lounge_, fs_, sw_), but prefixes are applied inconsistently: log_lounge_visit/delete_lounge_visit sit outside the lounge_ prefix while equivalent lounge_* tools exist, and fs_search_flight references a non-existent search_flight. The broad get_/list_/search_ verbs are predictable, but the mixed domain-prefix style and duplicate concepts hurt coherence.
Tool Count1/5
136 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server and bundles at least eight distinct domains (award search, cards, hotels, lounges, seatmaps, wifi, Viator, feedback). Many tools could be split into separate MCPs without loss of coherence, and the sheer count makes selection and prompt overhead prohibitive.
Completeness4/5
The core award-travel domain is well covered: bookings, hotels, points balances, statuses, vouchers, monitors, trips, and cards all have lifecycle CRUD, plus search and reference tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no true delete for standing orders, no single get for route monitors, and the Viator pair is an isolated mini-domain), but agents can generally complete workflows without dead ends.