Cito API

player_profile

Read-only

Player or UFC fighter profile: identity, current team, recent matches, and form/trends/radar when available.

When to use:

"How is X playing lately?"
Player page scaffold; form inputs for previews

Prefer over: manual multi-call career/trends/matches via call_api.

Do not use when: full team roster needed → team_profile; unresolved name → resolve_entity first.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 2–5. Example: { "game": "cs2", "playerId": "cs2-player-1", "recentLimit": 10, "includeTrends": true }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis. Example: "cs2".
`role`	No	Dota radar role filter.
`slug`	No	UFC fighter slug; also accepted where game allows idOrSlug.
`view`	No	Payload weight. Default summary.	summary
`window`	No	Form/radar window (e.g. Dota radar).
`playerId`	No	Pass exactly one of playerId or slug. Example: "cs2-player-1".
`recentLimit`	No	Recent matches window (default 10, max 25).
`includeTrends`	No	Include trends/radar/career enrichment 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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: data may be unavailable ('when available'), parallel safety is guaranteed, and upstream cost is 2–5. This does not contradict the 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?

The description is well-structured: core purpose first, then compact labeled sections for usage, exclusions, operational notes, and an example. No sentence is wasted, and the example is concise while illustrating key parameters.

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 output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, exclusions, parallel safety, cost, and a representative call, making it complete for this 8-parameter read-only tool.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description adds a concrete example JSON but doesn't materially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a player or UFC fighter profile and enumerates the content: identity, current team, recent matches, and form/trends/radar. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like team_profile and resolve_entity, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use examples, a 'Prefer over' note for call_api, and a 'Do not use when' section naming team_profile and resolve_entity. This gives an agent complete routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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?