livetennisapi-mcp

Match score

get_match_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Current score for one match. This is the fastest read, with the lowest latency. Use it when you only need the score and already know the match id. Works on the FREE plan (no card needed).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.
`score`	No	The current score.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the latency claim ('fastest read, lowest latency') and the FREE-plan/no-card availability note. Those are genuine operational facts an agent cannot get from annotations, though the return shape is left entirely to the output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the performance positioning and the access constraint. No sentence is redundant or buried.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies usage, latency, and plan access, leaving only minor unaddressed cases such as behavior for an invalid or finished match id.

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?

A single parameter with 100% schema coverage, including where match_id comes from (get_live_matches, get_upcoming_matches, get_recent_results). The description only echoes 'already know the match id' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Current score for one match') and implicitly positions itself against the heavier match siblings via 'when you only need the score.' It does not name a specific alternative (e.g., get_match or get_match_statistics), so differentiation is implied rather than 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule and precondition: use when you only need the score and already know the match id. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for richer data needs, so it falls short of a 5.

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.