Skip to main content
Glama

turnale

by app.turnale

Record results

record_results

Record one or many results. Score is conversational text: "6-4 3-6 10-7" (sets) or "16-8" (americano points). Outcomes: completed (default), walkover, retired (partial score allowed), cancelled, reinstate — reinstate CLEARS a recorded result and returns the match to scheduled (the fix for a mis-entered score). Corrections simply re-record. Winner (a|b = first|second listed side) only needed when the score alone does not decide.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYes
request_idNoOptional idempotency id — retrying a call with the same id never applies it twice
tournament_keyYesThe tournament's organiser key (starts with tk_)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
previewNoTrue when this is a preview — nothing was changed
summaryYesWhat happened, in one line
recordedYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical behavioral nuances: reinstate clears a result and returns the match to scheduled, corrections simply re-record, and winner is only needed when the score doesn't decide. Since annotations are all false and uninformative, this description carries the full transparency burden and meets it excellently.

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 concise yet dense: three sentences cover purpose, score format, outcome options, correction behavior, and winner logic. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple outcomes, correction semantics, winner logic) and the existence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It addresses mis-entry fixes, confirms multi-result support, and aligns with the schema's idempotency note without over-explaining return values.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While the schema only describes tournament_key and request_id, the description adds essential semantics for the results array fields: score format ('6-4 3-6 10-7' or '16-8'), outcome meanings with partial score allowance, and winner interpretation (a|b). This goes far beyond the schema's bare enum definitions.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Record' and the resource 'results', immediately distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like get_results or undo_last_change. It also clarifies that it handles one or many results, making the scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use reinstate versus re-recording, and it explains the default outcome ('completed') and partial score allowance for retirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the actionable guidance within the tool is strong.

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

All turnale 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools serve overlapping purposes: get_pdf and get_pdf_link both return PDF artifacts, get_schedule and list_matches both provide match scheduling info, and get_results vs. get_standings can be confused for finished tournaments. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions (embedded vs. link, upcoming vs. all matches, final vs. current standings), and roster-management tools are clearly separated by action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 30 tools consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_tournament, record_results, withdraw_player). The only slight variation is the mix of get_* and list_* for read operations, but that's a common and predictable convention. There are no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the domain is complex, this count is heavy and may overwhelm agents, especially since several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_pdf/get_pdf_link, get_schedule/list_matches). A more streamlined set around 20 tools would be more appropriate.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for tournament management: create/delete/end tournaments, manage players (add, remove, replace, withdraw, promote, update), generate draws, record results, handle doubles pairs, reschedule, retrieve standings/schedule/results, export/PDF, audit log, undo changes, and feedback. No major gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.

Resources