Skip to main content
Glama

livetennisapi-mcp

by io.github.livetennisapi

Archive player bios

search_archive_players
Read-onlyIdempotent

The people of the results archive (1968–2022): hand, date of birth, country, height, and career-high rank with the week it was first reached. Their ids are corpus person ids (the winner/loser player_id on archive results), not roster ids — for current players use search_players. Requires the BASIC plan or any History plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tourNoatp or wta.
limitNoMaximum players to return (1-200).
queryYesFull or partial player name, min 3 chars, e.g. "navratilova".

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.
playersNoMatching archive people, ordered by name.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the fields returned, the historical time range, and the distinction between corpus person ids and roster ids. However, it does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core resource and attributes; the second adds id semantics and a sibling alternative. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential context: time range, id type, and plan requirement. Minor omission: no mention of result ordering or that the query is a partial match (though the schema example implies it), which prevents a 5.

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 fully describes all three parameters with types, enums, defaults, and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('the people of the results archive (1968–2022)') and the specific attributes returned (hand, date of birth, country, height, career-high rank). It distinguishes from sibling tool search_players by explicitly noting the archive scope and the difference between corpus person ids and roster ids.

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 guidance: 'for current players use search_players' and clarifies the id namespace. It also mentions the plan requirement as a precondition, which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool. This is a strong alternative-identification.

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