Skip to main content
Glama
freshlife001

Texas Holdem MCP Server

by freshlife001

action_bet

Place a bet in Texas Holdem poker games on the MCP server by specifying player ID, table ID, and bet amount.

Instructions

do action bet

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes
player_idYes
table_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'action_bet' tool: sends 'performAction' request to poker server with action 'bet' and amount, then polls and formats updated table state.
    else if (request.params.name === "action_bet") {
      response = await sendPokerRequest('performAction', { 
        playerId: args?.player_id,
        tableId: args?.table_id,
        action: 'bet',
        amount: args?.amount 
      });
      view_text = `Player ${args?.player_id} action: Bet $${args?.amount}\n Game state:\n`;
      
      // Get updated table state
      view_text += await pollUntilPlayerActive(args?.player_id, args?.table_id);
    } 
  • Tool registration including name, description, and input schema for 'action_bet' in the ListTools response.
    {
      name: "action_bet",
      description: "do action bet",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          player_id: { type: "string" },
          table_id: { type: "string" },
          amount: { type: "number" },
        },
        required: ["player_id", "table_id", 'amount'],
      },
    },
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'do action bet' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. It provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to provide the minimal context needed for understanding. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 undocumented parameters (amount, player_id, table_id), the description adds no semantic information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, units for 'amount', or relationships between them. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving them completely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'do action bet' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'action_bet' with minimal elaboration. It doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon or what the bet action actually accomplishes. While it implies a betting action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like action_raise or action_call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. There are multiple action-related sibling tools (action_call, action_check, action_fold, action_raise), but the description doesn't explain what distinguishes 'bet' from these other actions or when it would be appropriate to use this specific tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/freshlife001/mcp_poker'

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