Cito API

leaderboard_comeback_wins

Read-only

Tennis season comeback-wins leaderboard: Share of matches won after losing the first set per player, from real first-set rows joined to completed matches, ordered highest pct first.

When to use:

Share of matches won after losing the first set per player, from real first-set rows joined to completed matches, 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 first-set data on at least 20 matches 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_comeback_wins"
  }
}

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses the data provenance (real first-set rows joined to completed matches, not synthetic), a domain constraint (tennis-only), a default (season 2026), a tour omission behavior (combined board), a minimum-sample filter, plus operational traits: parallel-safe and upstream cost of 1. That is well past what the annotations carry.

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?

Front-loaded and sectioned into when-to-use / prefer-over / do-not-use / constraints, which an agent can scan quickly. However, the 'When to use' bullet repeats the opening sentence verbatim, wasting roughly a third of the text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description still covers eligibility threshold, tour/season defaults, domain restriction, and cost/safety. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so tour/division synonymy, season default, and limit bounds are already documented inline; the description mostly restates them. The one genuinely additive point is the 20-match qualification filter, which the schema cannot express. 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 a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Share of matches won after losing the first set per player', sourced from first-set rows joined to completed matches and ordered by pct. It is unambiguous and cannot be confused with the aces, tiebreak, or finals leaderboard siblings.

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 routes the agent: 'Prefer over: raw leaderboard via call_api', and names three exclusions with their correct destinations (standings for ranking position, rankings_movers for week-over-week, player_form for one player's form). The rare-condition (>=20 first-set matches to qualify) is stated, which changes whether a call is worth making at all.

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?