Cito API

player_form

Read-only

Tennis player form: W/L record over the last N completed matches, current win/loss streak, and per-match rows (opponent, score, surface). Optional surface filter (Hard/Clay/Grass).

When to use:

"How is X playing lately?"; current streak; surface-specific record (e.g. clay last 5).

Prefer over: player_profile (identity + career aggregates, no streak); raw form via call_api for agent-normalized rows.

Do not use when: career totals/titles → player_profile with game tennis (wires /stats); ranking deltas → rankings_movers.

Tennis-only. Limit defaults to 10 (max 50, matching the API). Upstream rows arrive newest-first; the streak is the leading run of that order.

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>",
      "playerId": "<playerId>"
    },
    "name": "player_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis \| valorant. Example: "cs2".
`limit`	No	Recent-match window (default 10, max 50).
`surface`	No	Filter to one surface: Hard, Clay, or Grass.
`playerId`	Yes	Tennis player id, e.g. "atp_207989".

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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: API-matching limit cap of 50, default of 10, newest-first upstream row ordering, the precise definition of the streak as the leading run of that order, parallel-safety, and upstream call cost. These are operational facts an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 one-line summary followed by compact when-to-use, prefer-over, and do-not-use blocks, then operational notes. Every line carries distinct information; no filler or restated name/title.

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 read-only 4-parameter tool with an output schema already documenting return shape, the description covers selection guidance, ordering semantics, limits, and orchestration cost. Nothing needed to invoke 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 earns above that by explaining that the limit window is what the streak is computed over (leading run of newest-first order) and that surface accepts Hard/Clay/Grass. The limit default/max statement largely restates the schema, hence not 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 resource and outputs: W/L record over the last N completed matches, current streak, and per-match rows with opponent/score/surface, plus an optional surface filter. It explicitly separates itself from player_profile (identity + career aggregates) and raw call_api, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use examples ("How is X playing lately?", clay last 5), a named preferred alternative with the reason, and an explicit do-not-use list routing career totals to player_profile and ranking deltas to rankings_movers. Scope is also bounded as tennis-only.

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?