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	The publisher's codes have no expiry date.
`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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal a safe read-only operation, so the description does not need to cover destructive or side-effect behavior. It adds useful context about matching by name or slug and the composition of the returned record, though it does not disclose edge-case behaviors like case sensitivity or missing brands.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by matching guidance. Every clause earns its place; no filler or restatement.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a low-complexity single-parameter lookup, the description, input schema, output schema, and read-only annotations together cover what the agent needs. The validation rule is clear, examples are provided, and nothing important is missing.

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 property description already provides examples ('kraken' or 'Bybit Card'). The description repeats these examples but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Returns the full verified-code record') and a clear scope ('for one brand'), and enumerates what fields are included. The singular-resource scope also distinguishes it from siblings list_brands and search_codes without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly establishes the lookup context: use when you need one brand's complete verified-code record, matched by brand name or slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the one-brand targeting makes the intended use evident.

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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The three tools serve distinct lookup modes: direct brand lookup, structured category browsing, and free-text search. There is minor overlap because list_brands and search_codes both return code information, but their intended use cases are clear enough to avoid major misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_code, list_brands, search_codes. This makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to reason about.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a read-only verified-codes lookup service. Each tool covers a distinct access path—single record, list by category, and full-text search—without unnecessary duplication.

Completeness5/5

The domain is retrieving verified discount/code information, and the tool set covers direct retrieval, browsing by category, and free-text discovery. Since this appears to be a read-only data source, no create/update/delete operations are expected, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?