lounge_get_my_visits
Read-onlyDestructive
Get your visited lounges list with dates and notes.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max visits to return (default 20, max 50) |
Award Travel Finder
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description presents this as a simple 'Get' operation, but the annotations include `destructiveHint: true` while also including `readOnlyHint: true`. The description does not address or reconcile this contradiction, and a get-list operation being flagged as potentially destructive is highly misleading. This is an annotation 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then adds one useful detail about the returned fields. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the result contains: visited lounges with dates and notes. However, it does not clarify how it differs from the similarly named sibling `list_lounge_visits`, and the contradictory destructive annotation is left unresolved.
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 only parameter, `limit`, is fully documented in the input schema with its default and maximum values. The description itself does not mention the parameter, but because schema description coverage is 100%, the schema carries the explanatory burden and the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get your visited lounges list' and further specifies the returned content ('with dates and notes'). It is unambiguous as a read operation, but it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling tool `list_lounge_visits`, which appears to serve a similar 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `list_lounge_visits`, `lounge_mark_lounge_visited`, or `lounge_get_my_passport`. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
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.