Cito API

standings

Read-only

League/event standings or world/division rankings normalized to ranked rows.

When to use:

Table / playoff picture
UFC rankings; CS2 world or event standings; CDL standings; LoL league/tournament tables

Prefer over: raw standings via call_api for agent-normalized rows.

Do not use when: single team form → team_profile; live scores → live_matches. Dota has no first-class standings (may NOT_IMPLEMENTED or weak worldRanking).

Required scope keys by game:

lol: leagueId OR tournamentId
cs2: omit for world rankings; eventId for event standings
cod: optional season/stage
ufc: optional division (scope=division)
tennis: optional division (ATP or WTA tour; default ATP)
dota2: best-effort worldRanking only

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 1–2. Example: { "game": "cod", "season": "2026", "limit": 50 }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis. Example: "cs2".
`page`	No	Tennis only: page over the full published ranking list. With limit=5 the ATP list is 30 pages (150 ranked players); the response reports total/rankedPlayers/totalPages/hasMore.
`limit`	No	Max items to return (default 50, max 100). Example: 50.
`scope`	No	Interpretation depends on game; defaults sensibly per game.
`stage`	No	Stage key (COD / LoL).
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor from pagination.nextCursor. UFC world scope spans every division; page with it rather than raising limit.
`season`	No	Season key (COD).
`eventId`	No	CS2 event id for event standings.
`division`	No	UFC division key.
`leagueId`	No	LoL league id for league standings.
`tournamentId`	No	LoL/COD tournament id.

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 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / page

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tennis only: page over the full published ranking list. With limit=5 the ATP list is 30 pages (150 ranked players); the response reports total/rankedPlayers/totalPages/hasMore.",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / cursor

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Opaque cursor from pagination.nextCursor. UFC world scope spans every division; page with it rather than raising limit.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), but the description adds real behavioral context: parallel-safe flag, upstream cost of 1-2, the per-game scope-key requirement table, and the notable caveat that Dota may return NOT_IMPLEMENTED or a weak worldRanking. It does not discuss rate limits or error shapes, keeping it short of 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded one-line definition followed by labeled bullet groups and a concrete example call; no sentence is filler, and the routing constraints (prefer/do-not-use) appear before the parameter detail so an agent can bail out early.

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 an 11-parameter, multi-game tool with an output schema already documenting return shape, the description supplies everything else needed: game-specific scope rules, pagination strategy, cost/parallelism, and the known Dota limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 the baseline would be 3, but the description meaningfully augments it by mapping each game to the scope keys it requires (lol needs leagueId or tournamentId, cs2 omits for world vs eventId for events, tennis defaults to ATP) and by prescribing cursor paging over raising limit for UFC world scope. That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('league/event standings or world/division rankings normalized to ranked rows') with a clear verb-like outcome, and enumerates the concrete domains it covers (UFC rankings, CS2 world/event, CDL, LoL tables). An agent can distinguish it from sibling leaderboards and rankings_movers without opening any 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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use, names the preferred alternative ('raw standings via call_api'), and gives two named do-not-use routes with their alternatives (team_profile for single team form, live_matches for live scores). This is a full routing decision tree.

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?