Manage Bet Codes

Start, Inspect, List, or Stop Live Tracking

mbc_manage_tracking

Manage live match tracking for SportyBet, Football.com, and Betway slips. Actions: 'start' (costs 1 credit; mode 'ticket' fast-fails on a cut, 'game' tracks to the end), 'get' (0 credits), 'list' (0 credits), 'stop' (0 credits).

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "mbc_manage_tracking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Booking code (required for 'start').
`mode`	No	'ticket' (fast-fail on a losing game) or 'game' (track all games to the end).
`label`	No	Optional label for 'start' (max 80 chars).
`action`	Yes	Tracking operation to run.
`status`	No	Optional status filter for 'list'.
`track_id`	No	Track ID 'trk_...' (required for 'get' and 'stop').
`bookmaker`	No	Trackable bookmaker: 'sportybet', 'football.com', or 'betway' (default 'sportybet').
`webhook_url`	No	Optional HTTPS webhook URL on port 443/8443 for 'start'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description's genuinely additive content is the credit cost per action, which appears in no structured field. Beyond that it does not say what 'stop' does to an existing track, whether a start is resumable, or how webhooks behave, and it restates mode semantics already carried by the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The lead sentence establishes scope and the second front-loads the action-cost breakdown, which is the highest-value information. Some space is spent re-explaining ticket/game semantics that the schema already states, which is the only waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and credit costs plus action coverage are the main decision inputs, both supplied. Gaps relative to an 8-parameter mutation tool are lifecycle details: what stop preserves, whether a track can be restarted, and whether get and list differ in granularity.

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 description coverage is 100% with all eight parameters, three enums, and defaults (`bookmaker` defaults to 'sportybet', `track_id` format `trk_...`, webhook port restriction) documented inline. The description's only parameter-level statement, the ticket/game modes, duplicates the schema's own `mode` description. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb set (start/get/list/stop) applied to a specific resource (live match tracking for SportyBet, Football.com, Betway slips), so the agent knows it is the tracking tool. It never names a sibling to differentiate from, so the agent must infer that mbc_view_slip or mbc_manage_jobs_and_history are not the tracking entry point.

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?

Per-action credit costs (start = 1, everything else = 0) and the ticket-vs-game tradeoff give the agent real decision context for choosing an action. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites for stop, and no mention of when another tool would be the better choice.

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?