Cito API

event_card

Read-only

COMPOSITE event / fight-night card: identity, bout or match list, optional standings snippet.

When to use:

UFC fight night / numbered event page ("UFC 300 card", "Fight Night")
CS2 event hub with match list
Tournament/event overview before match_preview drill-down

Bouts come back in card order — main event first, then prelims, then early prelims. Each bout carries weightClass, titleBout, card placement, and (once fought) result { method, round, time, referee, winnerSlug }. Each corner carries images { headshotUrl, bodyImageUrl, imageUrl, proxiedImageUrl }, record, nickname, rank, championStatus, country and flag when upstream supplies them. Use proxiedImageUrl in browsers — ufc.com sends no CORS header. You do not need call_api per fighter for faces.

Prefer over: agent-side resolve + call_api /ufc/events + bout expansion; N+1 match_summary for the card list only; per-fighter call_api just to fetch headshots.

Prefer match_preview for one bout/match briefing; match_summary for completed recaps; live_matches for live-only strips; standings alone for pure tables.

Do not use when: you only need live scores (live_matches); single finished match recap (match_summary); no event name/id yet and game unknown.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 1–4. Example: { "game": "ufc", "eventIdOrSlug": "ufc-300", "includeBouts": true, "includeStandings": false }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Free-text event name when id/slug unknown. Example: "UFC 300". Resolves within this tool — still prefer resolve_entity when disambiguating many hits.
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis. Example: "cs2".
`limit`	No	Max bouts/matches on the card (default 20, max 50).
`includeBouts`	No	Include bout/match list (default true).
`eventIdOrSlug`	No	Event or tournament id/slug. Prefer over q when known. Required unless q is given. Example: "ufc-300".
`includeStandings`	No	Include standings/rankings snippet when API supports event/tournament/division scope (default false). For UFC this also joins divisional rank and movement onto each bout corner as team.rank / team.rankMovement — bout rows themselves carry no rank. Costs one extra upstream call.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description then adds substantial behavioral detail: bout ordering, result field shape, corner image variants, CORS rationale for proxiedImageUrl, parallel-safety, and upstream cost. It complements annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but highly structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each bulleted section earns its place. A small amount of redundancy exists between the 'Prefer over' and 'Do not use when' sections, but overall it remains efficient.

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 output schema exists and the input schema is rich, the description covers everything else an agent needs: selection criteria, sibling routing, response ordering and fields, image URL guidance, parallel-safety, cost, and a worked example. No critical operational context 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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, defaults, examples, and enums. The description adds a concrete example call and reiterates includeStandings behavior, but it mostly reinforces rather than significantly extends the schema's parameter documentation.

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 a precise composite definition: 'COMPOSITE event / fight-night card: identity, bout or match list, optional standings snippet.' It also explicitly contrasts with siblings such as match_preview, match_summary, live_matches, and standings, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

The description gives concrete when-to-use bullets ('UFC fight night / numbered event page', 'CS2 event hub', 'Tournament/event overview'), explicit preferences over alternatives, and a clear 'Do not use when' list. This is exemplary routing guidance for an agent.

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?