Skip to main content
Glama

livetennisapi-mcp

by io.github.livetennisapi

Archive result detail

get_archive_match
Read-onlyIdempotent

One result from the results archive (1968–2022), with per-match serve statistics where the era recorded them — stats are null for most rows before 1991, honestly, never synthesised. Requires the BASIC plan or any History plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
archive_match_idYesArchive match id, as returned by search_archive_matches.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue 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.
statsNoPer-match serve statistics (aces, double_faults, serve_points, first_in, first_won, second_won, serve_games, bp_saved, bp_faced). Null for most pre-1991 rows.
resultNoThe archive result.
messageYesHuman-readable summary. Identical to the text content, so either half can be used alone.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that serve stats are null for most pre-1991 rows and that data is never synthesized. Also states the access plan requirement. Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, so the description adds honest data-quality context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds value (time range, stats caveat, plan). No fluff, despite the informal 'honestly' which conveys transparency rather than redundancy.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the key caveat (null stats before 1991) and access requirement. Output schema exists and handles return format, so no further detail is needed.

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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which already fully describes archive_match_id including its source. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter nuance is provided.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a single archived result (1968–2022) with serve statistics, distinguishing it from siblings like get_match (likely live) and search_archive_matches (search). The verb 'get' and specific resource 'archive result' are explicit.

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?

Implies use for archive results and specifies plan requirements, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use. The archive context and plan condition provide practical guidance, though exclusions are absent.

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

All livetennisapi-mcp toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is largely distinct with clear resource/action pairs. Potential confusion exists between get_match and get_match_score (both return match information), and get_fixtures vs get_upcoming_matches (both list upcoming matches), but descriptions clarify the specific use cases for each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using either 'get_' or 'search_'. This makes the API highly predictable and easy to navigate, with no stylistic deviations.

Tool Count3/5

With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical range. The broad scope (live, archive, charting, rankings, tournaments) justifies the count, but it borders on overwhelming and requires careful categorization.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core lifecycle of a tennis information API: searching players/tournaments, retrieving profiles/rankings, live scores and detailed match analysis, historical results, and head-to-head records. Minor gaps like tournament draws or standings are missing, but the primary use cases are well covered.

Resources