Skip to main content
Glama

turnale

by app.turnale

Withdraw player

withdraw_player

Withdraw a player (or their pair) mid-tournament. Remaining matches become walkovers for the opponents; americano regenerates its future rounds instead. Preview first, confirm to apply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoOmit or false: return a preview of what would change. True: apply it.
request_idNoOptional idempotency id — retrying a call with the same id never applies it twice
player_nameYes
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
affected_matchesYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations providing no safety hints (all false), the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the impact on remaining matches (walkovers) and format-specific behavior (americano regenerates future rounds), and emphasizes the preview/confirm mechanism. This is valuable context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by behavioral consequences and a usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the essential outcomes (walkovers, americano regeneration) and the preview/confirm workflow, which is central to this tool. It doesn't discuss prerequisites or error scenarios, but the output schema exists and the parameter schema is well-documented, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds context for 'confirm' ('Preview first, confirm to apply') but this is already detailed in the schema. It doesn't clarify 'player_name' beyond indicating a player or pair. Overall, the description adds marginal value over the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Withdraw a player (or their pair) mid-tournament.' This is a specific verb-and-resource description. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like remove_player or replace_player, but the mention of tournament consequences (walkovers, americano rounds) helps distinguish it from simple removal.

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 usage context: withdrawing a player mid-tournament, with a preview-first workflow ('Preview first, confirm to apply'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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