US Gambling Regulations MCP Server

by Angeltooth

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of US gambling regulations: license types, fee calculation, jurisdiction comparison, compliance requirements, regulatory updates, and market size. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case (get_*, calculate_*, compare_*). The naming is predictable and uniform throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. It provides a focused set of capabilities without being overly sparse or bloated, each tool earning its place.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core regulatory needs: license types, fees, compliance, updates, and market analysis. Missing is a general state overview or direct legal status tool, but agents can work around this with existing tools.
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries no behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid state inputs, whether any authentication is required, or what kind of 'detailed information' will be returned. The description simply restates the tool's purpose without adding any behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no unnecessary padding or repetition. For a tool with one parameter and a straightforward function, this length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to compensate by explaining what 'detailed information' includes and what the caller can expect. It does not describe the return format, potential errors, or any caveats. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret results.
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?
The input schema fully describes the 'state' parameter with examples of kebab-case values, giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool's function: getting detailed information about gambling license types for a specific US state. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('gambling license types'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_compliance_requirements' or 'compare_jurisdictions', the focus on license types is reasonably distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'calculate_fees' or 'compare_jurisdictions', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implicit through the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'based on available market data' but doesn't disclose whether data is locally available, how projections are made, or if the operation is read-only. It also lacks details on limitations or assumptions, leaving uncertainty about the tool's internal behavior.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It avoids fluff while including essential scope ('for a state') and a qualifier ('potential') that adds nuance without excess.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 required param, no output schema), but the description leaves uncertainty about output format and data sources. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks contextual depth, such as whether it returns a numeric value, a report, or requires specific state codes.
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?
The schema already fully documents the 'state' parameter, and the description's phrase 'for a state' aligns with it. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function—calculating market size and revenue projections for a state—with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_fees or compare_jurisdictions, which deal with different aspects of regulatory analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to sibling tools. It does not state when to choose this over calculate_fees or get_license_types, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and scope, without specifying return format, handling of invalid states, or whether results are jurisdiction-specific.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, immediately stating the action and target. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what 'specific compliance requirements' means or what the response looks like, leaving ambiguity despite its simplicity.
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?
The schema describes the 'states' parameter as 'List of state jurisdictions', and the description adds 'one or more states'. This is consistent but adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'compliance requirements' with scope 'for one or more states'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_fees or get_regulatory_updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, complementary tools, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states that fees are calculated, without revealing what output format to expect (e.g., total amount, breakdown), whether calculations are estimates, or any jurisdiction-specific logic. This is insufficient for a financial calculation tool.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and core purpose. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must clarify what users will receive. It does not mention return format, edge cases, or that the result may be an estimate. This leaves significant gaps for a calculation tool operating across multiple states.
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%, and the schema descriptions provide meaningful context (e.g., 'Projected annual gross gaming revenue in USD' includes units; license_type includes examples). The tool description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's contribution.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('licensing fees') with a clear scope ('based on projected revenue for a specific state'). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_market_size by focusing on fees, not market size.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when projected revenue and a state are known) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks direct comparisons to sibling tools, but the context of requiring projected revenue makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action and does not disclose output format, handling of missing data, or any limitations of the comparison, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler, effectively conveying the core function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the schema covers inputs well, the lack of any output description and minimal behavioral context means an agent has incomplete information to anticipate the tool's response. The description is adequate but not comprehensive given no annotations or output schema.
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?
The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the enum for 'aspect' and the min 2 requirement for 'states'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers.
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?
The description clearly uses the verb 'compare' and identifies the resource as 'gambling regulations' between multiple states, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single-state details like licensing or fees. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinct.
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?
The description implies a use case (comparing states) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools or exclusions are referenced, so guidance is limited to an implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds 'recent' and 'specific states' as behavioral scoping, but does not disclose what 'recent' means, the output structure, or any limitations. Still, as a read tool, safety is implied and no contradictions exist.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words, effectively communicating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details about the return value, the meaning of 'recent', or how it differs from related tools.
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% for the single 'states' parameter, which is already described in the schema. The description's phrase 'specific states' simply mirrors the schema without adding extra 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('recent regulatory changes and updates') and scope ('for specific states'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_license_types' and 'get_compliance_requirements'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![us-gambling-regulations-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Angeltooth/us-gambling-regulations-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Angeltooth/us-gambling-regulations-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![us-gambling-regulations-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Angeltooth/us-gambling-regulations-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Angeltooth/us-gambling-regulations-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Angeltooth/us-gambling-regulations-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server