Manage Bet Codes

Search Bookmaker Events & Fixtures

mbc_search_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search up to 20 team or head-to-head match queries ('Arsenal vs Chelsea', 'Real Madrid') on a bookmaker. Returns event IDs, kickoff times, confidence ('exact' or 'fuzzy'), and top canonical markets. Costs 0 action credits (counts against daily search cap).

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": {
      "bookmaker": "<bookmaker>",
      "queries": "<queries>"
    },
    "name": "mbc_search_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sport`	No	Sport filter (default 'football'; pass 'all' for all sports).
`queries`	Yes	1 to 20 search queries.
`bookmaker`	Yes	Bookmaker key or alias (e.g. 'sportybet', '1xng', 'betking').
`market_filter`	No	Optional canonical market names to filter (e.g. ['1X2', 'Over/Under']).
`include_markets`	No	Include top canonical markets on each event (default true).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: billing is 0 action credits but still consumes a daily search cap, which an agent needs to know before retrying in a loop. The confidence labels hint at result trustworthiness but are not explained further.

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?

A single tight sentence with inline examples and no filler; the highest-value facts (batch limit, return fields, cost) are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description only needs the gaps: quota/cost behavior, batch limits and result-trust signals, all of which it supplies. It stops short of explaining what distinguishes an 'exact' from a 'fuzzy' confidence hit, which would be the one missing piece for deciding whether to trust a result.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query format ('Arsenal vs Chelsea', 'Real Madrid') and the 20-query ceiling, but both are already in the schema (examples in property descriptions, maxItems: 20), so it adds little independent meaning.

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 ('Search ... team or head-to-head match queries ... on a bookmaker') and grounds it with literal query examples. The batch cap (20) and returned fields make it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like mbc_get_event_markets or mbc_resolve_picks.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the description shows what input shapes are accepted and what comes back, which suggests discovery-style lookups, but it never says when to prefer this over fetching markets for a known event ID or when a query should instead be resolved through another sibling. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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?