Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
getodds-mcp

getodds-mcp

Official
by getoddsapi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Mixed upcoming-games odds board (no key)

get_odds_board
Read-only

Fetch upcoming DraftKings Sportsbook New Jersey prices across leagues without an API key or credits.

Instructions

The next DraftKings Sportsbook (New Jersey) prices across leagues, as shown on the getoddsapi.com homepage. No API key, no credits.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_odds_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: no authentication or credits required and a single-book (DraftKings NJ) scope. It stops short of freshness, rate limits, or how much data the board contains.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences that front-load the source and scope, with the access-cost note last. The homepage reference is mildly incidental but does convey provenance, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a returned 'board' looks like, and it does not (no mention of games, markets, or price format). For a simple zero-argument read tool the gap is tolerable but real.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies; it correctly implies no filtering inputs are accepted.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource as a mixed odds board sourced from DraftKings Sportsbook (New Jersey) covering multiple leagues, but the phrasing 'the next ... prices' is vague about what actually comes back (upcoming games with prices?). It never distinguishes this from siblings such as get_public_board or get_odds, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which board-style tool to pick.

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 only usage signal is 'No API key, no credits', which hints this is the frictionless access path, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_public_board, get_odds, or get_fanduel_markets, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools