Cito API

list_routes

Read-only

Index of raw REST routes from the live OpenAPI spec: method, path, summary, tag.

When to use:

You need a long-tail path for call_api and do not want to guess
Checking whether an endpoint exists before building around it
Mapping what raw data backs a curated tool

Prefer curated tools for standard jobs — this indexes the escape hatch, it is not a replacement for list_capabilities.

Do not use when: a curated tool already covers the outcome (call list_capabilities instead).

Note: the spec omits /lol entirely, though LoL routes work. Filtering by game=lol returns that caveat rather than an empty list.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 1. Example: { "game": "ufc", "q": "rankings" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Free-text filter over path and summary.
`game`	No	Filter to one game prefix (also accepts fortnite). Omit for all routes.
`limit`	No	Max routes to return (default 60, max 200).

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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds a meaningful caveat about the /lol spec omission and that filtering by game=lol returns a caveat rather than an empty list. It also states 'Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 1.' No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then compact sections for when-to-use, caveats, and example. Every sentence carries useful signal and no padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies usage boundaries, a known edge case, operational semantics (parallel-safe, upstream cost), and an example. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example combining game and q, and warns about game=lol's special behavior, giving the agent more than the raw schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Index of raw REST routes from the live OpenAPI spec: method, path, summary, tag.' It also differentiates from list_capabilities by calling it 'the escape hatch' and clarifying it is 'not a replacement for list_capabilities', so an agent can distinguish it from 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?

Provides an explicit 'When to use' list covering concrete needs (long-tail path for call_api, checking endpoint existence, mapping raw data) and a 'Do not use when' clause directing to list_capabilities when a curated tool covers the outcome. The alternative is named directly.

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?