FPL Copilot

Gameweek review

get_gameweek_review

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this to review an FPL manager's gameweek: points vs the average, captain result, bench points and transfers, plus how lucky their season has been against fplcopilot's expected points.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_gameweek_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gw`	No	Gameweek (default: the last finished)
`team_id`	No	The manager's FPL team ID (entry ID), or any FPL link containing /entry/<id>/. Leave empty if unknown.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / gw / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "maximum": 38,
-    "minimum": 1,
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxLength": 12,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the output includes derived analytics (comparison to expected points / 'luck'), but it says nothing about behavior when team_id is omitted or about data recency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the payoff list following immediately; every clause contributes information. It is slightly run-on with the trailing 'plus how lucky...' clause, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately by naming the five result areas. The one gap is behavior for an unspecified team_id, which matters given the parameter's 'Leave empty if unknown' guidance.

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 both parameters (gw defaulting to last finished gameweek, team_id accepting an entry ID or an FPL link) are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies that a manager/team is the subject and adds no semantics beyond that, which is the baseline case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('review an FPL manager's gameweek') and enumerates the contents: points vs average, captain result, bench points, transfers, and luck vs expected points. That enumeration meaningfully separates it from siblings like get_manager_squad or rate_my_team, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 opening 'Use this to review...' gives an explicit usage context, so the intent is not merely implied. However, there are no exclusions and no named alternatives among the 20 sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer why it would pick this over get_manager_squad or rate_my_team.

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

All FPL Copilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?