Cito API

call_api

Read-only

Power escape hatch: allowlisted Cito REST call with unshaped raw JSON in data.raw.

When to use:

Long-tail paths not yet curated (Fortnite, CS2 leaderboards, niche stats)
Debugging payloads while building an app
User explicitly knows an OpenAPI path

Prefer curated tools for all standard jobs (live, schedule, profiles, standings, H2H, previews).

Do not use when: a curated tool covers the outcome. Avoid parallel storms; same plan rate limits apply.

Path must start with / and match allowlisted prefixes: /health, /lol, /cs2, /dota2, /cod, /ufc, /fortnite, /tennis. Rejects absolute URLs and path traversal → PATH_NOT_ALLOWED.

Parallel-safe: yes but discouraged in bulk. Upstream cost: 1. Example: { "method": "GET", "path": "/cs2/rankings/teams", "queryJson": "{"page":1,"limit":20}" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path starting with /. Allowlisted prefixes only. Example: "/cs2/rankings/teams".
`query`	No	Query params as a plain object (alternative to queryJson). Example: {"year":2026}.
`method`	No	HTTP method. Prefer GET. Example: "GET".	GET
`bodyJson`	No	Stringified JSON body for POST only (rare).
`queryJson`	No	Stringified JSON object of query params. Example: "{\"page\":1,\"limit\":20}".	{}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true if the tool succeeded
`data`	No	Result payload when ok is true; null on error
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`partial`	No
`pagination`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/open-world/non-destructive; the description adds path validation behavior, PATH_NOT_ALLOWED errors, parallel-safety guidance, and upstream cost of 1. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Although longer than average, the description is tightly organized with labeled sections and no filler. The opening one-liner, usage bullets, path constraints, safety notes, and example each add distinct value in a scannable order.

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 output schema exists, and annotations cover safety/open-world behavior, so the description need not explain return values. It covers when to invoke, when not to, path constraints, error behavior, rate-limit caution, and a full call example.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented with descriptions and examples. The description adds a concrete usage example and emphasizes the path allowlist, but most parameter-level meaning is already in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific framing: 'Power escape hatch: allowlisted Cito REST call with unshaped raw JSON in data.raw.' It names the exact action, target resource, and output shape, and positions itself against curated siblings as the long-tail fallback.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly lists three use cases (long-tail paths, debugging payloads, user knows an OpenAPI path) and gives a direct exclusion: 'Do not use when: a curated tool covers the outcome.' It also names curated job categories to prefer and adds rate-limit caution.

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

All Cito API 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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Composite tools like match_preview, match_summary, and match_details are well-separated by lifecycle stage, and resolve_entity vs search_entities are differentiated by intended use (single best match vs browsing list). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names follow snake_case and are descriptive, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun: most retrieval tools use noun phrases (match_summary, team_profile, standings) while actions use verb_noun (call_api, list_capabilities, resolve_entity). This is consistent within each category, so it remains predictable.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the server covers multiple games (LoL, CS2, UFC, Dota, COD, Tennis) and provides composite tools to reduce upstream calls. Each tool earns its place, and the breadth justifies the count.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers health checks, live matches, schedules, profiles, standings, head-to-head, previews, recaps, deep match details, event cards, entity resolution, and includes an escape hatch (call_api) for long-tail paths. No obvious gaps for a read-only sports data API.

Resources

Need Help?