livetennisapi-mcp

Match timeline

get_match_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Timeline of events for a match: breaks, games won, sets won, momentum runs. Requires the PRO plan.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum events to return (1-200).
`match_id`	Yes	Match id, as returned by get_live_matches, get_upcoming_matches or get_recent_results.

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.
`events`	No	Events, newest first, as the API returns them.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / events / description

Previous value: -"Events in chronological order."New value: +"Events, newest first, as the API returns them."

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."

First observedJul 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral fact is the PRO plan entitlement, which is genuinely useful gating context, but it says nothing about pagination (limit truncation) or ordering of the timeline.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the hard prerequisite. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the PRO-gated access plus the event taxonomy covers what an agent needs to call it. The one gap is that a truncated timeline (limit default 30 of up to 200) is not flagged as a partial result.

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 description coverage is 100%: match_id provenance and the limit range/default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (match event timeline) and enumerates the event kinds returned (breaks, games won, sets won, momentum runs), which separates it from statistics/analysis siblings. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by content rather than by routing.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the enumerated content — an agent can guess this is for sequence-level events rather than aggregates. No when-not-to-use and no pointer to get_match_statistics or get_match_analysis, which are the obvious near-neighbors.

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.