Skip to main content
Glama

PropLine — Sports Betting Odds & Prop Resolution

by io.github.proplineapi

Get resolution summary

propline_get_resolution_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free-tier endpoint. Returns the factual volume of player props PropLine has graded against real box scores over the last N days (aggregated counts only): total graded/settled, games, sports covered, plus per-sport and top-market breakdowns. Useful for: 'how much graded prop data does PropLine have, what's the coverage'. A coverage proof, never a profitability claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook-back window, 1-90. Defaults to 30.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it is a free-tier endpoint, returns only aggregated counts (not individual records), and explicitly states it is not a profitability claim. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with 'Free-tier endpoint' and 'Returns'. Every sentence adds distinct information: what it returns, when to use it, and an important caveat. No filler.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the return content (total graded/settled, games, sports, per-sport and top-market breakdowns) and the use case. Annotations cover safety. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (days) with a clear description including range and default. The description merely echoes 'last N days' without adding additional semantics, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 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 clearly states what the tool does: returns aggregated counts of graded player props over a look-back window. It explicitly distinguishes this from other tools by noting 'aggregated counts only' and positioning it as a coverage proof, not a profitability claim.

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?

The description gives a clear 'Useful for' context ('how much graded prop data does PropLine have, what's the coverage') and explicitly says it is never a profitability claim. It does not list alternative tool names, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide an agent.

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

All PropLine — Sports Betting Odds & Prop Resolution toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools are mostly distinct by purpose, but several overlap in areas like odds retrieval (get_odds vs get_best_line vs get_event_ev) and historical data (get_odds_history vs get_odds_closing vs export_odds_history). Descriptions are detailed and clarify distinctions, but the close functional relationships (e.g., get_event_movement vs get_odds_history) may cause selection ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming pattern is largely consistent: propline_<verb>_<noun> with verbs like get, list, export. Most tools follow this structure (e.g., get_event_results, list_events, list_sports). Deviations include 'propline_export_odds_history' (export instead of get) and a few longer names like 'propline_get_mlb_grand_salami' and 'propline_get_nhl_daily_goals_total' that break the simple verb_noun pattern but are still readable. Overall, the naming is predictable with minor exceptions.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools for a sports betting odds and prop resolution server, the count is on the higher side but still within a reasonable range given the domain's complexity (odds, EV, movement, results, player trends, webhooks, exports). Each tool serves a distinct function, though some could be consolidated (e.g., grand salami and NHL daily totals could be one). Slightly heavy but not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle: discover sports and events (list_sports, list_events), retrieve odds and markets (get_odds, list_event_markets), analyze EV and lines (get_event_ev, get_best_line, get_event_movement), track results and player stats (get_event_results, get_event_stats, get_player_history, get_player_trends), and backfill via exports. Missing features include webhook management (deliberately omitted) and possibly batch operations, but the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.

Resources