Cito API

leaderboard_break_points_saved

Read-only

Tennis season break-points-saved leaderboard: Share of break points saved per player, from real match-stats aggregates, ordered highest pct first.

When to use:

Share of break points saved per player, from real match-stats aggregates, 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 facing at least 50 break points 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_points_saved"
  }
}

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses real behavioral facts: tennis-only scope, season default 2026, optional tour giving a combined board, a 50-break-point qualification filter, parallel-safety and upstream cost 1. It stops short of describing failure modes or what an empty result means, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Well front-loaded and sectioned into when/prefer-over/do-not-use, which is easy to scan. It loses a point because the opening sentence is duplicated verbatim in the 'When to use' bullet, wasting space without adding information.

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?

For a filtered leaderboard with an output schema, full parameter coverage and non-destructive annotations, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: scope, defaults, eligibility threshold, ordering and cost. 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 coverage is 100% and the description largely restates it (season default 2026, tour optional, omit for combined board). The one genuine addition is that qualification requires facing at least 50 break points, which is a filter not expressible in the schema, but the remaining parameters (game, limit) get no extra meaning.

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?

States a specific resource (tennis season break-points-saved leaderboard), the metric definition ('share of break points saved per player') and the ordering ('highest pct first'). It explicitly separates itself from siblings by naming call_api for the raw variant, which lets an agent distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use block (season tables, clutch/serve-efficiency queries), a 'prefer over' alternative (raw leaderboard via call_api) and a 'do not use when' list routing to standings, rankings_movers and player_form by intent. No inference about alternatives is left to the 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

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?