Manage Bet Codes

Book a New Bet Code From Plan or Picks

mbc_book_code

Mint a new verified booking code on 1 to 6 target bookmakers from either a plan_id (from mbc_resolve_picks) or direct picks. Costs 2 credits per target code created; refunded if no code is created.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mbc_book_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Optional fan-out list of 1 to 6 target bookmakers.
`picks`	No	Direct game picks when booking without a plan_id.
`strict`	No	All games must resolve or no code is created (default true).
`plan_id`	No	10-minute plan_id returned by mbc_resolve_picks.
`bookmaker`	No	Primary target bookmaker key or alias (e.g. 'sportybet').
`accept_odds_change`	No	Allow booking if odds moved since resolution (default false).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No
`billing`	No
`success`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, and the description adds what annotations cannot: a 2-credit charge per code created and a refund when no code is produced. It omits auth/prerequisite requirements and what happens on partial fan-out failure, keeping it short of a 5.

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, no filler, with the action and scope front-loaded and the billing consequence second. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

The core cost model and input sourcing are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, for a paid, non-idempotent write with six optional parameters and a strict flag, the absence of any failure/partial-success or prerequisite guidance leaves a gap.

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 parameter documentation is already carried by the schema. The description only reinforces the fan-out size and the plan_id source tool, adding little semantics that the schema fields do not already say.

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 ('mint a new verified booking code'), the fan-out scope (1 to 6 target bookmakers), and the two input sources. Naming mbc_resolve_picks as the origin of plan_id ties it into the workflow and separates it from conversion-oriented siblings.

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?

Gives clear selecting conditions between the two usage paths: plan_id from mbc_resolve_picks versus direct picks. It doesn't state when to prefer the conversion siblings (mbc_convert_code, mbc_convert_to_all) over booking, but the create-vs-convert distinction is implied by 'mint a new'.

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

All Manage Bet Codes tools Inspect

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

Need Help?