Cito API

player_profile

Read-only

Player or UFC fighter profile: identity, current team, recent matches, and form/trends/radar when available.

When to use:

"How is X playing lately?"
Player page scaffold; form inputs for previews

Prefer over: manual multi-call career/trends/matches via call_api.

Do not use when: full team roster needed → team_profile; unresolved name → resolve_entity first.

Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 2–5. Example: { "game": "cs2", "playerId": "cs2-player-1", "recentLimit": 10, "includeTrends": true }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game`	Yes	Game title: lol \| cs2 \| dota2 \| cod \| ufc \| tennis. Example: "cs2".
`role`	No	Dota radar role filter.
`slug`	No	UFC fighter slug; also accepted where game allows idOrSlug.
`view`	No	Payload weight. Default summary.	summary
`window`	No	Form/radar window (e.g. Dota radar).
`playerId`	No	Pass exactly one of playerId or slug. Example: "cs2-player-1".
`recentLimit`	No	Recent matches window (default 10, max 25).
`includeTrends`	No	Include trends/radar/career enrichment when available.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true if the tool succeeded
`data`	No	Result payload when ok is true; null on error
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`partial`	No
`pagination`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: data may be unavailable ('when available'), parallel safety is guaranteed, and upstream cost is 2–5. This does not contradict 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?

The description is well-structured: core purpose first, then compact labeled sections for usage, exclusions, operational notes, and an example. No sentence is wasted, and the example is concise while illustrating key parameters.

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 the output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, exclusions, parallel safety, cost, and a representative call, making it complete for this 8-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds a concrete example JSON but doesn't materially enrich parameter meaning 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 identifies the resource as a player or UFC fighter profile and enumerates the content: identity, current team, recent matches, and form/trends/radar. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like team_profile and resolve_entity, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides explicit when-to-use examples, a 'Prefer over' note for call_api, and a 'Do not use when' section naming team_profile and resolve_entity. This gives an agent complete routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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

All Cito API tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct job, and the descriptions explicitly separate temporal states (live vs upcoming vs preview vs recap vs deep-dive) and interaction modes (one-best resolve vs browse search, curated tool vs raw escape hatch). Even the match/event families are carefully tiered so an agent should rarely misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and grouped into recognizable families like list_*, match_*, and *_profile, but the overall convention is mixed: verb-prefixed names like resolve_entity and call_api sit alongside noun-phrase names like event_card, match_summary, and standings. Consistent snake_case prevents chaos, but there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, but the server spans multiple games and several composite read workflows, so each tool has a distinct purpose. It feels slightly heavy but not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers health, discovery, entity resolution, profiles, standings, schedules, live matches, previews, recaps, and deep-dive match data, with call_api as an escape hatch for long-tail routes. Notable omissions like a standalone historical results search and some per-game upstream gaps keep it from a perfect score.

Resources

Need Help?