Skip to main content
Glama
lappi

rttf-mcp

by lappi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_tournament

Retrieve table tennis tournament metadata and final standings from rttf.ru by tournament ID, including title, date, venue, ratings, and match results in a single request.

Instructions

Турнир rttf.ru: метаданные и итоговая таблица. Один запрос.

tournament_id — число из адреса турнира (rttf.ru/tournaments/243702).

Матчей турнира в ответе нет ни в каком режиме: на странице турнира их нет вовсе (этапы выложены картинками), а список игр лежит в закрытом /games.

Метаданные: tournament_id, title, date, start_time, hall ({hall_id, name} или null), address. limit — ограничение по рейтингу как на сайте: число, "отк" (открытый) или "дети". doubles — парный ли турнир. has_results — сыгран ли турнир; у несыгранного standings пуст, а счётчики, average_rating и coefficient равны null.

Счётчики сыгранного турнира зависят от вида: у одиночного — participants (участников) и games (встреч), а pairs и players равны null; у парного — pairs (пар), players (игроков) и games, а participants равно null.

registered / registration_limit — сколько заявилось и лимит заявок (null, если лимита нет). У парного турнира сайт считает заявки парами.

Одиночная таблица: place, player_id, name (как на сайте, с логином в скобках), city, rating_before_event, rating_delta, rating_after_event — рейтинги до и после ЭТОГО турнира, а не сегодняшние; wins/losses — встречи, sets_won/sets_lost — партии.

Парная таблица: place, pair — два игрока с одиночными рейтингами на момент турнира, pair_rating_at_event — их сумма, wins/losses, sets_won/sets_lost. Дельты и рейтинга после у пар сайт не публикует.

average_rating — средний рейтинг участников с двумя знаками: сайт считает его по внутренним дробным рейтингам, поэтому среднее целых из таблицы с ним точно не совпадёт. coefficient — коэффициент турнира (у парных null).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tournament_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains edge cases: unplayed tournaments have empty standings and null counters, singles vs. doubles counters differ, rating fields refer to the event rather than today, average_rating uses fractional ratings and won't match integer averages, and pairs lack rating deltas.

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?

The description is long but every paragraph earns its place by documenting a distinct aspect: parameter, limitations, metadata, counters, registration, singles, doubles, and rating semantics. It is clearly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly documents all return fields, their formats, and many conditional behaviors. It covers singles vs. doubles differences, unplayed tournament behavior, rating semantics, and calculation quirks, leaving no essential information missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only indicates tournament_id is a string, but the description adds critical meaning: it is the numeric part of the tournament URL (e.g., rttf.ru/tournaments/243702). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and tells the agent exactly how to obtain the parameter.

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 'Турнир rttf.ru: метаданные и итоговая таблица. Один запрос.', which clearly states the tool returns tournament metadata and final standings. It is specific to the tournament resource and implicitly distinct from sibling tools focused on players, halls, and search.

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?

The description gives useful context for when to use the tool: it requires a tournament_id from the tournament URL and returns metadata plus standings. It also provides an exclusion by stating that matches are never included and that game lists live in a separate closed /games endpoint, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools