Skip to main content
Glama

GC Airport Transfers

by com.gc-airporttransfers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request a booking

request_booking

Lodge a booking REQUEST for any fixed-price route — airport or cruise terminal. It is created as pending; the operator confirms and the customer receives a payment link by email. No payment happens through this tool. Confirm all details with the customer first.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paxYesPassengers 1-16. Over 16 cannot be booked online - give the customer the phone number.
dateYesYYYY-MM-DD (at least 1 hour ahead; same-day: phone instead)
nameYesCustomer full name
timeYesHH:MM 24h
emailYesCustomer email (receives acknowledgement + payment link)
notesNoAnything else, e.g. child seats with ages (optional)
phoneYesCustomer phone
flightNoFlight number (optional, enables free flight tracking)
pickupYesPick-up place
dropoffYesDrop-off place
sandboxNoNot supported: true is refused (this endpoint has no test mode; a request creates a real booking). Omit it.
vehicleNosedan | carnival | maxi | eqb (Mercedes EQB luxury SUV, up to 3) | v300 (Mercedes V300 luxury van, up to 6) - auto-upgraded if too small for pax

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
codeNo
errorNo
errorsNo
lodgedNo
statusNo
messageNo
requestNo
sandboxNo
vehicleNo
duplicateNo
price_audNo
referenceNo
amount_audNo
payment_urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Lodged: ok true with the booking reference, status awaiting_payment and the payment link the customer also receives by email (duplicate true = the same request was already lodged in the last 10 minutes; nothing new was created). Sandbox connections: status sandbox_not_lodged, lodged false.",
+  "properties": {
+    "amount_aud": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "code": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "duplicate": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "errors": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "lodged": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payment_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "price_aud": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "reference": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "request": {
+      "properties": {
+        "date": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "dropoff": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "pax": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "pickup": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "time": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "vehicle": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "sandbox": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "vehicle": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / pax / description
      Previous value: -"Passengers 1-11"New value: +"Passengers 1-16. Over 16 cannot be booked online - give the customer the phone number."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sandbox / description
      Previous value: -"true = create a TEST booking that never reaches the operator and sends no emails. For integration testing only."New value: +"Not supported: true is refused (this endpoint has no test mode; a request creates a real booking). Omit it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / vehicle / description
      Previous value: -"sedan | carnival | maxi (auto-upgraded if too small for pax)"New value: +"sedan | carnival | maxi | eqb (Mercedes EQB luxury SUV, up to 3) | v300 (Mercedes V300 luxury van, up to 6) - auto-upgraded if too small for pax"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the real workflow: the request is created as pending, the operator confirms it, the customer receives a payment link by email, and no payment happens through the tool. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a non-read-only booking action.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key workflow caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies the essential workflow, pending-state behavior, payment boundary, and customer-confirmation requirement. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 all 12 parameters are already well documented in the input schema, including pax limits, date rules, and vehicle options. The description adds the fixed-price/airport-or-cruise route restriction, but otherwise does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource — 'Lodge a booking REQUEST' — and scopes it to fixed-price airport or cruise-terminal routes. That is clearly distinct from a quote or availability check, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context: use this for fixed-price routes, expect a pending request rather than a confirmed booking, and confirm details with the customer first. It does not explicitly say when to use check_availability or get_quote instead, so the alternative-routing guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GC Airport Transfers 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