verified-codes

Get the verified code for a brand

get_code

Read-only

Returns the full verified-code record for one brand: the code, the benefit, how to apply it, last-verified date, availability notes, and the guide/review URLs. Match by brand name or slug (e.g. 'kraken', 'Bybit Card').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brand`	Yes	Brand name or slug, e.g. 'kraken' or 'Bybit Card'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`code`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`brand`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`aliases`	Yes
`benefit`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`keywords`	Yes
`validity`	Yes
`expires_at`	Yes	No fixed expiry timestamp is recorded. Consult validity and benefit_detail for trial windows and program conditions.
`review_url`	Yes
`signup_url`	Yes
`how_to_apply`	Yes
`country_notes`	Yes
`last_verified`	Yes	ISO date of the historical check recorded in the verification log, not an expiry date.
`benefit_detail`	Yes
`verification_log_url`	Yes
`verification_methods`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / expires_at / description

Previous value: -"The publisher's codes have no expiry date."New value: +"No fixed expiry timestamp is recorded. Consult validity and benefit_detail for trial windows and program conditions."

removedOutput schema / properties / validity / const
```
Removed value: -"no-expiry"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / validity / enum

Added value: +[
+  "no-expiry",
+  "terms-dependent"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "aliases": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "benefit": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "benefit_detail": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "brand": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "category": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "code": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "country_notes": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "expires_at": {
+      "description": "The publisher's codes have no expiry date.",
+      "type": "null"
+    },
+    "how_to_apply": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "keywords": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "last_verified": {
+      "description": "ISO date of the historical check recorded in the verification log, not an expiry date.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "review_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "signup_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "slug": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "const": "active",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "validity": {
+      "const": "no-expiry",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verification_log_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verification_methods": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "brand",
+    "slug",
+    "category",
+    "code",
+    "benefit",
+    "benefit_detail",
+    "status",
+    "validity",
+    "expires_at",
+    "last_verified",
+    "verification_methods",
+    "verification_log_url",
+    "aliases",
+    "country_notes",
+    "url",
+    "review_url",
+    "signup_url",
+    "how_to_apply",
+    "keywords"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 9, 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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact-match lookup semantics, but says nothing about not-found behavior, ambiguity handling, or result freshness beyond the 'last-verified date' field.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering both the return payload and the matching key, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 and annotations covering read-only safety, the description need not document return values, and it is sufficient for a one-parameter lookup. It stops short of covering the failure case (brand not found) or routing to search_codes when the exact name is uncertain.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Brand name or slug, e.g. kraken or Bybit Card'. The description's examples duplicate the schema verbatim, adding no new syntax, casing, or fallback guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full verified-code record for one brand') and enumerates the record's contents, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is distinguishable from the list/search siblings by the 'one brand' scope, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent how to match ('by brand name or slug') but gives no guidance on when to use this versus search_codes or list_brands, nor what to do when the exact brand is unknown. Usage is implied by the singular-brand framing rather than stated.

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

All verified-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?