Skip to main content
Glama

livetennisapi-mcp

by io.github.livetennisapi

Rankings listing

get_rankings
Read-onlyIdempotent

The FULL published ranking table in rank order for one system — the newest week at or before as_of. Rows carry player_name as published and a null player_id for players outside our roster, so the table has no silent holes. ATP/WTA history runs deep; the ITF circuits begin 2026-07-29. For point-in-time records of SPECIFIC players use get_player_rankings. Requires the PRO plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoYYYY-MM-DD — serves the newest published week at or before this date. Omit for latest.
limitNoMaximum ranking rows to return (1-200).
systemYesRanking system to list. utr has no listing — it is a rating, not a ranking.

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.
messageYesHuman-readable summary. Identical to the text content, so either half can be used alone.
rankingsNoThe table in rank order.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals row-level behavior: 'player_name as published and a null player_id for players outside our roster, so the table has no silent holes.' It also discloses data depth (ATP/WTA deep history vs ITF start date) and PRO plan requirement. This is meaningful added context, though not every edge case is covered.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: primary purpose, row behavior, data availability, alternative tool, access requirement. No filler or repetition. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 read-only listing tool with a well-described schema and output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, data caveats, row semantics, and access. Nothing critical is missing; the explicit alternative and PRO plan note make it fully contextual.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including the as_of semantics and system enum. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond what the schema contains, so baseline 3 is appropriate; no gaps to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'The FULL published ranking table in rank order for one system' – clearly stating this tool lists complete rankings for a chosen system. It explicitly contrasts with get_player_rankings, distinguishing its scope as the full table rather than point-in-time records for specific players.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'For point-in-time records of SPECIFIC players use get_player_rankings' directly names the alternative. Also gives context on data availability (ITF circuits begin 2026-07-29) and access requirements ('Requires the PRO plan'), which helps the agent decide if the tool is appropriate.

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