Cito API

tennis_schedule

Read-only

One day of tennis: the day's schedule and/or the matches completed that day, across ATP and WTA.

When to use:

"What tennis is on today?"; a specific day's fixtures; results completed on a given date; building a daily digest.

Prefer over: call_api for /tennis/schedule and /tennis/matches/completed (both require ?date=, which this tool supplies and validates); live_matches (in-progress only, right now); upcoming_schedule (a forward window, not a specific day).

Do not use when: matches currently in play → live_matches; a named player's history → player_matches.

Tennis-only. 'date' defaults to today (UTC) and MUST be YYYY-MM-DD. Choose with 'include': both (default), scheduled, or completed. Both halves are fetched in parallel, so either can fail on its own without losing the other.

'limit' bounds EACH half (the completed route ignores ?limit= upstream, so the bound is applied here); scheduledCount/completedCount report how many rows the day held and *Returned how many came back. The two halves overlap: the day's list includes matches already played, so the same matchId can appear in both — see the overlap block before de-duplicating or counting.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 1 or 2.

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": "tennis_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Day to fetch, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today (UTC).
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis \| valorant. Example: "cs2".
`limit`	No	Rows per half, applied here (default 20, max 50). scheduledCount/completedCount still report the full day.
`include`	No	both (default) \| scheduled \| completed.

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 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, it discloses that the two halves are fetched in parallel and can fail independently, that the completed route ignores ?limit= upstream so the bound is applied locally, how scheduledCount/completedCount differ from rows returned, and that matchId can appear in both halves. That is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

It is front-loaded and segmented into when-to-use, prefer-over, and do-not-use blocks, which scans well. A few details (the date format, the limit default) restate the schema, and the run is longer than strictly necessary, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description's remaining job is routing and operational caveats — both fully covered, including partial-failure behavior, count semantics, and de-duplication guidance. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result 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 is 3, but the description adds real meaning: date defaults to today UTC and must be YYYY-MM-DD, the include enum's effect on which halves are fetched, and that limit bounds each half rather than the total while counts still report the full day. The overlap caveat further clarifies how returned rows relate to the parameters.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource and scope: one day of tennis fixtures and/or completed matches across ATP and WTA. It is immediately distinguishable from live_matches, upcoming_schedule, and player_matches, which are named explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use examples ('What tennis is on today?', daily digest, results on a date), an explicit prefer-over list with the reason (call_api requires ?date=, live_matches is in-progress only, upcoming_schedule is a forward window), and an explicit do-not-use list routing to live_matches and player_matches.

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?