Skip to main content
Glama

livetennisapi-mcp

by io.github.livetennisapi

Charting: one match, every stat family

get_charting_match
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every Match Charting Project stat family for ONE charted match, both players, with the per-set split (set 1, set 2, …, Total) exactly as charted. Charting ids are their own id space (1960–2026), mostly matches with no counterpart in the live tables. Requires the ULTRA plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
charting_match_idYesCharting match id — its own id space, not a match_id.

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.
genderNo
mcp_idNoThe Match Charting Project's own row identifier.
messageYesHuman-readable summary. Identical to the text content, so either half can be used alone.
playersNoBoth players as charted.
familiesNoEvery stat family, per player, with the per-set split.
charting_match_idNoThe charted match.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the per-set split is 'exactly as charted' (no processing), and the ULTRA plan requirement is disclosed. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with the core function first, followed by two important clarifications. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 with an output schema, the description covers scope, ID semantics, and access requirements. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further elaboration is needed.

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?

The schema already documents charting_match_id well, and the description reinforces its meaning by clarifying that charting IDs are a separate ID space from match_id. This adds practical guidance beyond the field description.

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 states the tool's function: it returns every Match Charting Project stat family for one charted match, including both players and per-set splits. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting charting IDs are their own ID space with no live-table counterpart.

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?

The context is clear: use this when you need charting data for a single match, especially when the match has no live-table equivalent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the ID-space distinction and 'ULTRA plan' requirement effectively guide selection.

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