Skip to main content
Glama

Get fare family

get_fare_family
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fare family / branded fare selector for ONE specific flight. Returns every fare the airline sells on that flight (Saver, Flexi, Flexi Plus, ...) with a single recommended pick and the reasons for it, scored on concrete rupee benefit per rupee of premium. It answers which fare to pick, fare families, branded fares, fare types, 'what do I get for more', or a comparison of fare options for a flight already chosen, typically straight after search_flights or when the traveller taps the fare CTA in the results widget. Policy detail (baggage, cancellation, reschedule) comes from get_flight_details instead. Input: that flight's offer_token from search_flights (plus return_offer_token for a round trip). TWO FORMS ARE VALID and the tool accepts either: the long signed token, or the SHORT REFERENCE from the same flight's offerRef field (about 30 characters, e.g. 'AkJMUkRFTGUJAABFEAAhRs3JWXw'). A short value is NOT a mistake and not an internal id: the widget's Book action deliberately passes the short form so a 400-character token stays out of the conversation, and it goes in as offer_token as given. Values are matched exactly, character for character: a retyped, abbreviated or merged value fails, the onward value is not valid for the return leg, and a round trip needs BOTH. They expire; a rejected value needs a fresh search_flights, not an old value. The selector's Continue (or a request to review / book the fare on screen) leads to get_flight_review: that follow-up arrives as a new user turn naming the offer_token and the selected fare's price, which are exactly get_flight_review's arguments, so the review page renders as its own card. The identifiers in hand are enough without a new search. One result covers every fare on that flight, so later questions about that flight's fares are answerable from it. A repeat call for the same flight re-renders the same widget above the answer; only a different flight needs a new call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offer_tokenYesOffer token from search_flights — either the long signed token or the flight's short `offerRef`. Both resolve to the same offer; the widget's Book action sends the short form so a 400-character token never travels through the conversation.
return_offer_tokenNoOptional return-leg token for a round trip, in either of the same two forms.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
legsNo
cabinNo
faresNo
originNo
headingNo
currencyNoINR
tripTypeNoone_way
fareCountNo
requestIdNo
offerTokenNo
solutionIdNo
compareRowsNo
destinationNo
flightNumberNo
pairBookingUrlsNo
recommendedFareNo
recommendedIndexNo
returnOfferTokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: tokens expire, exact character matching is required, a repeat call re-renders the same widget, and a rejected value needs a fresh search_flights. This goes well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense paragraph of roughly 350 words. It front-loads purpose well, but lacks bullet points or clear sections, making it hard to scan. Much of the detail is necessary for a complex token-based tool, but the presentation is not 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers input token nuances, when to use, follow-up chaining to get_flight_review, and scope (one result covers every fare on that flight). It is complete for a complex tool with output schema backing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the two accepted token forms (long signed token vs short offerRef), exact matching rules, and that a round trip needs both tokens. It enriches understanding but does not exhaustively specify every edge case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fare family / branded fare selector for ONE specific flight' and details the return (every fare, recommended pick, reasons). Clearly distinguishes from get_flight_details by noting policy detail comes from there.

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 says when to use: which fare to pick, typically straight after search_flights or when the traveller taps the fare CTA. Names get_flight_details as the alternative for policy detail and explains the follow-up flow to get_flight_review.

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.

Resources