livetennisapi-mcp

Archive career aggregates

get_archive_career

Read-onlyIdempotent

One player's whole career over the results archive (1968 to 2022). W-L record in total and by surface/level/year, titles, and summed serve statistics. The corpus records serve stats from 1991 only, so matches_with_stats says how many matches the serve block covers. The name must resolve to one person. An ambiguous fragment returns the candidate list to choose from. Requires the BASIC plan or any History plan.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Player name fragment, min 3 chars. Must resolve to exactly one person.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the request succeeded, including when the answer is an empty list. False for a missing or rejected key, a plan that does not include this data, an unknown id, a rate limit or a network error. The message then says what to do. check_api_status is the exception: it is true whenever the API answered, and reports API key problems in the message.
`span`	No	Career span inside the archive.
`serve`	No	Summed serve stats + derived ratios. matches_with_stats states the coverage. Ratios are null where the denominator is zero.
`record`	No	The W-L record.
`by_year`	No	Per-season W-L.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim.
`player_name`	No	The resolved player.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Player name fragment, min 3 chars — must resolve to exactly one person."New value: +"Player name fragment, min 3 chars. Must resolve to exactly one person."

changedOutput schema / properties / message / description

Previous value: -"Human-readable summary. Identical to the text content, so either half can be used alone."New value: +"Human-readable summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim."

changedOutput schema / properties / ok / description

Previous value: -"True when the call returned data. False for a tier wall, a missing or rejected key, or an empty result — all of which are normal states with a clear remedy, not failures."New value: +"True when the request succeeded, including when the answer is an empty list. False for a missing or rejected key, a plan that does not include this data, an unknown id, a rate limit or a network error. The message then says what to do. check_api_status is the exception: it is true whenever the API answered, and reports API key problems in the message."

changedOutput schema / properties / record / properties / by_level / description

Previous value: -"W-L per source tier code."New value: +"W-L per tier code."

changedOutput schema / properties / serve / description

Previous value: -"Summed serve stats + derived ratios. matches_with_stats states the coverage; ratios are null where the denominator is zero."New value: +"Summed serve stats + derived ratios. matches_with_stats states the coverage. Ratios are null where the denominator is zero."

AddedAug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: serve stats only exist from 1991 and matches_with_stats reports coverage, plus a plan/auth requirement (BASIC or any History plan) and the ambiguity return path. This is exactly the kind of disclosure that can't be inferred from structured fields.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and contents, then caveats and prerequisites. Every sentence carries information, though the plan/entitlement sentence could be trimmed slightly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out; the description still conveys the shape of the result and the coverage caveat. Only the missing explicit route to a sibling for name resolution leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already states "min 3 chars, must resolve to exactly one person," so the description's name constraint largely restates it. No additional syntax or format guidance is offered 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?

"One player's whole career over the results archive (1968 to 2022)" states a specific resource, scope and time coverage, then enumerates the aggregates returned (W-L total/by surface/level/year, titles, serve stats). That clearly separates it from sibling single-match tools like get_archive_match and search tools like search_archive_players.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the key precondition (name must resolve to one person) and the fallback behavior (ambiguous fragment returns a candidate list to choose from), which tells the agent how to recover. It doesn't explicitly name search_archive_players as the disambiguation path or give exclusions versus get_player, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All livetennisapi-mcp 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.