Manage Bet Codes

Merge 2–30 Bet Codes Into One

mbc_merge_codes

Combine 2 to 30 booking codes (from the same or different bookmakers) into one deduplicated booking code on a target bookmaker. Reports any skipped, dropped, or conflicting games. Costs 2 credits for 2 codes plus 1 credit per extra input code; refunded if no code is created.

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": {
      "pairs": "<pairs>"
    },
    "name": "mbc_merge_codes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pairs`	Yes	2 to 30 (bookmaker, code) pairs to merge.
`target`	No	Target bookmaker key or alias (defaults to the first pair's bookmaker).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`billing`	No
`success`	No
`target_code`	No
`selections_count`	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?

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses deduplication behavior, that skipped/dropped/conflicting games are reported, and a concrete credit cost with a refund condition on failure. It does not cover auth or prerequisites, and doesn't clarify whether conflicts cause partial rather than full failure, so it stops 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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what the operation does, what it reports back, and what it costs. The core action is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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?

For a moderately complex multi-input merge with an output schema available, the definition covers the action, the failure reporting, and the pricing/refund model, which is what an agent needs to decide and call. Only the handling of partial failures and any account-level prerequisites are unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the target default. The description restates the 2–30 range and the same-or-different-bookmaker allowance but adds no new meaning about pair format or bookmaker key/alias handling. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Combine 2 to 30 booking codes ... into one deduplicated booking code') with explicit scope (same or different bookmakers) and an output target ('on a target bookmaker'). The merge semantics are immediately distinguishable from a conversion or split operation described by siblings.

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 implied by the operation itself and by the stated 2–30 input range, but the description never says when to prefer this over siblings such as a single-code conversion or a split, nor does it name any alternative. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the name and constraints.

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?