Cito API

leaderboard_break_conversion

Read-only

Tennis season break-conversion leaderboard: Share of break opportunities converted per player, from real match-stats aggregates read return-side, ordered highest pct first.

When to use:

Share of break opportunities converted per player, from real match-stats aggregates read return-side, ordered highest pct first. season tables; clutch/serve-efficiency leader queries.

Prefer over: raw leaderboard via call_api for agent-normalized rows.

Do not use when: ranking position → standings with game tennis; week-over-week movement → rankings_movers; one player's recent form → player_form.

Tennis-only. Season defaults to 2026; tour (ATP|WTA) is optional — omit it for the combined board. Only players with at least 50 break opportunities qualify.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 1.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "game": "<game>"
    },
    "name": "leaderboard_break_conversion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis \| valorant. Example: "cs2".
`tour`	No	ATP or WTA tour; omit for the combined board. Synonym: division.
`limit`	No	Max items to return (default 10, max 100). Example: 10.
`season`	No	Season year (YYYY). Default 2026.
`division`	No	Synonym for tour (ATP or WTA), matching the standings tool spelling.

Output 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / game / description

Previous value: -"Game title: lol | cs2 | dota2 | cod | ufc | tennis. Example: \"cs2\"."New value: +"Game title: lol | cs2 | dota2 | cod | ufc | tennis | valorant. Example: \"cs2\"."

changedInput schema / properties / game / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "lol",
-  "cs2",
-  "dota2",
-  "cod",
-  "ufc",
-  "tennis"
-]New value: +[
+  "lol",
+  "cs2",
+  "dota2",
+  "cod",
+  "ufc",
+  "tennis",
+  "valorant"
+]

AddedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: tennis-only scope, season default 2026, optional tour that collapses to a combined board, a minimum-50-break-opportunities eligibility filter, parallel safety, and upstream cost. It does not describe result shape, but an output schema exists, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 structure is excellent — purpose, when to use, prefer over, do not use, constraints, cost — all front-loaded. However, the 'When to use' bullet repeats the opening sentence verbatim, and the fragment 'season tables; clutch/serve-efficiency leader queries' is garbled, costing some efficiency.

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 a 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, everything an agent needs to select and call it is present: game requirement, tour/division aliasing, season default, row cap, and the qualifying-player threshold. No material gap remains.

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 100%, so tour/division, season defaults, and limit bounds are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates them ('season defaults to 2026; tour (ATP|WTA) is optional — omit it for the combined board'). The eligibility threshold adds useful meaning but is a result filter rather than a parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names the specific metric (share of break opportunities converted per player), the data source (real match-stats aggregates, read return-side), and the ordering (highest pct first). An agent can distinguish this from leaderboard_break_points_saved, leaderboard_return_games_won, or leaderboard_aces purely from the description.

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?

It provides both positive routing ('season tables; clutch/serve-efficiency leader queries'), an explicit prefer-over rule against call_api for agent-normalized rows, and a 'Do not use when' block mapping three distinct intents to standings, rankings_movers, and player_form. This is explicit when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?