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 }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis. 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

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'Parallel-safe: yes' and 'Upstream cost: 4–8', which are behavioral traits not in annotations. It also notes the optional surface filter is ignored for non-tennis games, matching the schema, without contradiction.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: an opening definition, explicit 'When to use' and 'Do not use' lists, a 'Prefer over' statement, and behavioral notes. Every line adds distinct value, and the key information is front-loaded. Space is used efficiently.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (9 params, output schema present) and rich annotations/schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what it returns, key parameter relationships, and alternatives. The output schema presumably handles return details, so nothing critical 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 the schema already documents all 9 parameters, but the description adds valuable semantic context: the composite behavior, the matchId OR (teamA+teamB) relationship, the tennis-specific surface filter, and the parallel-safe/cost context. The example JSON also demonstrates the intended parameter usage, which exceeds the baseline.

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 description clearly states the composite pre-match briefing purpose, lists the content components (sides, roster/form snippets, H2H stub, event context), and explicitly names the intended use cases (pick'ems, articles, match-page). It distinguishes from siblings like match_summary and match_details by specifying when those are preferred.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'Do not use when' conditions with concrete examples like deep links and 'Who should I watch'. It names alternatives (match_summary, match_details) and when to prefer each, plus warns against chaining multiple tools manually, making the routing decision clear.

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?