Skip to main content
Glama

livetennisapi-mcp

by io.github.livetennisapi

Match detail

get_match
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full detail for one match by id: players, score, surface, round and status. Includes market prices on PRO and model analysis on ULTRA.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
match_idYesMatch id, as returned by get_live_matches, get_upcoming_matches or get_recent_results.

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.
matchNoThe match.
marketNoMatch-winner market. Requires the PRO plan; absent otherwise.
messageYesHuman-readable summary. Identical to the text content, so either half can be used alone.
analysisNoModel analysis. Requires the ULTRA plan; absent otherwise.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / match / properties / event_status
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How the match ended (or paused) when it did not run its course: Retired, Cancelled, Walk Over, Postponed or Interrupted. Null means completed normally OR never resolved. Branch settlement logic here.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / match / properties / round_code
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Round in the normalized vocabulary (F, SF, QF, R16 … Q); null when the label is unrecognised, never guessed.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / match / properties / tour
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "atp, wta, challenger, itf or juniors. Null when the feed never stated one (exhibitions, team events).",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / match / properties / tournament_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Stable tournament id — pass to get_tournament. Null where uncatalogued.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / match / properties / withdrew
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Completed matches only: which player retired or conceded the walkover, 1 or 2. Null means \"not a withdrawal, or no evidence\", never a guess.",
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / match / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "tournament",
-  "round",
-  "player1",
-  "player2",
-  "score",
-  "status",
-  "surface",
-  "indoor",
-  "serving",
-  "winner",
-  "win_probability_p1"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "tour",
+  "tournament",
+  "tournament_id",
+  "round",
+  "round_code",
+  "player1",
+  "player2",
+  "score",
+  "status",
+  "surface",
+  "indoor",
+  "serving",
+  "winner",
+  "event_status",
+  "withdrew",
+  "win_probability_p1"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about plan-dependent content (market prices on PRO, model analysis on ULTRA) and lists the specific fields included, which helps set expectations about the response. No contradiction with 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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key fields; the second sentence adds plan-specific context. No superfluous words.

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?

The description, combined with the schema and annotations, fully covers what the tool returns and the variations by plan. The presence of an output schema means return formatting doesn't need to be described. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state behavior on free tiers, but the output schema likely signals optional fields.

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 for match_id is 100%, and the schema already explains the parameter's provenance (as returned by other tools). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'by id', 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 tool as retrieving full details for a specific match by ID, and enumerates the key fields (players, score, surface, round, status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific aspects (e.g., get_match_score, get_match_odds). The verb 'get' is implicit in the name, but the phrasing 'Full detail for one match by id' is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving comprehensive match information rather than a specific sub-detail, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_match_score or get_match_analysis. The plan-dependent note ('on PRO and ULTRA') provides context for content availability, but not when to choose this tool over others.

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