U.S. casino directory + a player's loyalty data, comps, tiers, and gambling tax docs.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
There is some overlap between get_casino and get_rewards_program, as both return rewards program details. The player_action tool is a broad proxy that may cover actions not fully defined, potentially causing confusion.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get, list, search), but player_action deviates by using noun_verb, which is slightly inconsistent.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying casino and rewards information and executing player actions, not overburdened.
The set covers retrieving and searching for casinos and rewards programs, and the player_action tool covers many authenticated actions. However, it lacks update or create capabilities for the data model, which may be acceptable.
get_casinoAInspectGet a casino's detail including its rewards/players-club program and full tier ladder, by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Casino slug, e.g. bellagio-nv-880e8400 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the response includes details, rewards program, and tier ladder, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence (14 words) that front-loads the key action and resource, with zero wasted words. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is retrieved (detail, rewards, tier ladder). It is complete enough for a simple get-by-slug tool, though lacking explicit return format details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (slug). The description adds 'by slug', which repeats the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('casino's detail'), and what it includes (rewards/players-club program and full tier ladder), distinguishing it from siblings like get_rewards_program which focuses on just the rewards program.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the method ('by slug') but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus siblings like search_casinos or get_rewards_program. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_rewards_programAInspectGet one rewards/players-club program by id — brand, earning rules, status-match notes, and full tier ladder. (get_casino also returns a casino's program inline.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Rewards program id (UUID), from list_rewards_programs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It lists the returned data (brand, rules, notes, tier ladder) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every part contributes meaning. No unnecessary words or complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and how to use it. However, it does not mention potential errors, data freshness, or pagination (though not expected). Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'id' exists, and its schema description already explains it as a UUID from list_rewards_programs. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond this. Since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the action 'Get one rewards/players-club program by id' and specifies the returned fields: brand, earning rules, status-match notes, and full tier ladder. It also distinguishes from sibling tool get_casino by noting the alternative inline return.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description clearly indicates when to use this tool (to get a program by id) and mentions that get_casino also returns program info inline, providing context for choosing between tools. However, it does not include explicit 'when not to use' or additional usage constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_rewards_programsBInspectList casino rewards/players-club programs, optionally filtered by search term or brand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| search | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing and filtering capability, failing to mention that this is a read-only operation, any pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), rate limits, or whether results are paginated. The description is insufficient for understanding side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not mention return format, pagination details, ordering, or how to handle large result sets. For a listing tool, additional context (e.g., 'returns an array of reward program objects with id, name, brand') is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'search term' and 'brand' but does not clarify what 'brand' refers to (e.g., casino brand or program brand) or how 'search' works (e.g., matches name, ID). The 'limit' parameter is not explained beyond its default value. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (rewards/players-club programs), with optional filters for search term or brand. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rewards_program (single item) and search_casinos (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description: 'optionally filtered by search term or brand.' However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_rewards_program for a single program or player_action for interactions. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
player_actionAInspectAuthenticated. Invoke any LoyaltyVIP player/host action (proxies POST /v1/player). Requires a Bearer API key in the Authorization header. Examples: tier_status, bankroll_status, list_trips, list_w2g, tax_year_summary, host_dashboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action name, e.g. tier_status | |
| params | No | Optional action parameters |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication and that it proxies a POST endpoint, but fails to mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior for different actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; the description does not explain return values or behavior of different actions. For a generic proxy tool, examples help but completeness is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds examples of action names but does not explain parameter syntax or expected formats beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool invokes any LoyaltyVIP player/host action, with specific examples (tier_status, bankroll_status, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on casinos and rewards programs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions authentication requirement but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied but not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_casinosAInspectSearch the public U.S. casino directory by name, state (two-letter code), type (commercial|tribal|racino), or rewards availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Name search | |
| type | No | casino_type: commercial | tribal | racino | |
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | Two-letter state code, e.g. NV | |
| offset | No | ||
| has_rewards | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the search scope and filters, with no mention of rate limits, authentication, pagination, or response details. This is insufficient for a search tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence (18 words) that front-loads the purpose and lists filters. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and only basic parameter information, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or error handling, which are important for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for has_rewards but not for limit/offset. It adds marginal value beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3 for moderate coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a public casino directory by name, state, type, or rewards availability. It distinguishes from siblings (get_casino, get_rewards_program, list_rewards_programs, player_action) by specifying the search/filter functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists the filterable fields, making it clear what criteria can be used. However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use get_casino instead), though the sibling names imply the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.