livetennisapi-mcp

API status and plan

check_api_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify if the Live Tennis API is reachable and which subscription plan your key uses, to identify why other tools return no data.

Instructions

Check whether the Live Tennis API is reachable and which plan the configured key is on. Useful for diagnosing why other tools are refusing data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	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.
`tier`	No	Detected plan: FREE, BASIC, PRO or ULTRA. Null when no key is configured.
`has_key`	No	Whether a key was supplied with this call.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable summary. Identical to the text content, so either half can be used alone.
`reachable`	No	True when the API answered its health check.
`api_version`	No	API version reported by the health check.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.1Jul 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying it checks both reachability and plan, providing valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words.

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 simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and an output schema available, the description fully covers purpose and usage context, making it complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4; the description does not add parameter semantics but none are needed.

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 tool checks API reachability and plan. This distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_fixtures or get_live_matches, which focus on specific data rather than API status.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool is 'useful for diagnosing why other tools are refusing data', providing clear context for when to use it and implying alternatives (sibling tools) for normal data retrieval.

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