Skip to main content
Glama

livetennisapi-mcp

by io.github.livetennisapi

Results archive (1968–2022)

search_archive_matches
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the results archive — completed-match RESULTS from 1968 through 2022: ATP and WTA, main draws, qualifying and the ITF/futures tiers. Winner/loser-shaped records with final score, seeds and ranks AT THE TIME of the match. Use this for historical questions ("Borg's Wimbledon finals"); the archive ends 2022-12-31 where our own results (get_recent_results) begin. Requires the BASIC plan or any History plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLatest tournament START date, YYYY-MM-DD.
fromNoEarliest tournament START date, YYYY-MM-DD.
tourNoatp or wta.
levelNoSource tier code: G=grand slam, M=masters, A=tour, F=finals, D=davis cup, C=challenger, O=olympics, or a futures category code (e.g. 15).
limitNoMaximum results to return (1-200).
roundNoRound code, e.g. F for finals.
player_nameNoCase-insensitive fragment of EITHER player's name, min 3 chars, e.g. "borg".

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.
resultsNoArchive results, newest tournament first.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, but the description adds valuable context: the archive ends on 2022-12-31, results are winner/loser-shaped with final score and seeds/ranks at match time, and a plan requirement is disclosed. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the defaults.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Search the results archive'), followed by scope, example, transition to sibling, and plan requirement. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema (noted as present), the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, scope, temporal boundary, usage example, plan requirement, and handoff to a sibling tool. This is complete for a search tool with seven optional, well-documented parameters.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little specific parameter detail beyond the schema; the time-range context for 'from'/'to' is implicit in the archive's date range, but no explicit param-level guidance is given beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as searching the results archive for completed matches from 1968–2022, covering ATP/WTA, main draws, qualifying, and ITF/futures tiers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_recent_results by explicitly naming the archive's end date and where the sibling takes over.

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 an explicit use case ('historical questions ("Borg's Wimbledon finals")') and states the boundary between this tool and get_recent_results ('where our own results (get_recent_results) begin'). Also mentions the required plan (BASIC or History), giving clear guidance on when this 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