Manage Bet Codes

Bulk Convert Multiple Bet Codes

mbc_bulk_convert

Convert 2 to 4 source booking codes synchronously across all or selected target bookmakers in one batch (each slip's own source bookmaker is automatically excluded from its targets). Costs 2 credits per successful (code, target) pair; failed pairs cost 0 credits. For 5 to 20 source codes, use mbc_manage_jobs_and_history with action='create_job' and kind='convert'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "codes": "<codes>"
    },
    "name": "mbc_bulk_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`codes`	Yes	2 to 4 source slips to bulk convert.
`targets`	No	Optional target bookmaker keys. Omit to convert each slip to all eligible bookmakers.
`include_card`	No	Set true to render a combined 1080x1920 PNG share card containing all slips.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pairs`	No
`slips`	No
`billing`	No
`success`	No
`successful_pairs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new traits: synchronous execution, automatic exclusion of each slip's own source bookmaker from its targets, and a credit cost model (2 credits per successful (code, target) pair, 0 for failures). The cost disclosure is the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and escalation rule before the cost detail. Every clause carries actionable information: cardinality, sync behavior, exclusion rule, cost, and the fallback path.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining decision-critical facts: size limits, target scoping, hidden exclusion behavior, and billing. An agent can call this correctly and predict its cost without further lookup.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining the pairing semantics behind 'targets' (cost is per code-target pair, and the source bookmaker is silently dropped from each slip's targets) and the omit-to-convert-to-all default. It does not spell out include_card or bookmaker key/alias formatting, leaving a small gap.

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 ('convert booking codes') with an explicit cardinality scope ('2 to 4', 'one batch') and the target dimension ('all or selected target bookmakers'). It also names the sibling tool used at a different scale, so an agent can distinguish it from conversion alternatives without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a precise when-to-use boundary (2-4 codes, synchronous, single batch) and an explicit alternative with exact arguments for the out-of-range case: mbc_manage_jobs_and_history with action='create_job' and kind='convert' for 5-20 codes. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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?