Cito API

match_preview

Read-only

COMPOSITE pre-match briefing: sides, roster/form snippets, H2H stub, event context — for pick'ems, articles, and match-page before state.

When to use:

Upcoming match deep link
"Who should I watch before this game?"
App scaffold for preview cards

Prefer over: manually chaining team_profile ×2 + head_to_head + schedule. Prefer match_summary when match is completed; match_details for live in-game.

Do not use when: user wants final score/recap of a finished match.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 4–8. Tennis H2H accepts an optional surface filter (Hard, Clay, Grass). Example: { "game": "lol", "teamA": "t1", "teamB": "gen-g", "includeH2H": true, "recentLimit": 5 }

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": "match_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis \| valorant. Example: "cs2".
`teamA`	No	Id/slug; UFC fighter slug when applicable.
`teamB`	No	Id/slug for side B.
`eventId`	No	Optional event context (UFC).
`matchId`	No	Pass matchId OR (teamA + teamB).
`surface`	No	Optional tennis H2H surface filter: Hard, Clay, or Grass. Ignored for other games.
`includeH2H`	No	Include composed H2H stub.
`recentLimit`	No	Form window per side (default 5, max 15).
`includeRosters`	No	Include roster snippets when available.

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"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / surface

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional tennis H2H surface filter: Hard, Clay, or Grass. Ignored for other games.",
+  "examples": [
+    "Clay"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

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); the description adds genuine operational context: parallel-safe, upstream cost of 4–8 calls, and that it composes multiple upstream lookups. It does not explain failure/degradation behavior when a side is unknown, so not a 5.

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 one-line summary followed by tightly scoped bullets and a concrete example; nearly every line earns its place. The 'Upstream cost: 4–8' fragment is terse but informative rather than wasteful.

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 9-parameter composite tool with an output schema and full schema descriptions, the description supplies exactly what the structured fields cannot: selection logic, composition cost, and a worked example. Nothing an agent needs 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.

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 value beyond it by showing a full example payload and clarifying that the surface filter only applies to tennis H2H and is ignored otherwise. The matchId-vs-teamA+teamB disambiguation lives in the schema rather than the prose, keeping it just under a 5.

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 composite artifact (pre-match briefing) and enumerates its contents: sides, roster/form snippets, H2H stub, event context. It also positions itself against named siblings (match_summary for completed, match_details for live), so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicit when-to-use bullets, an explicit 'Prefer over' chaining recipe, explicit alternatives for the completed/live cases, and an explicit 'Do not use when'. No inference required.

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?