Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FPL Copilot

by com.fplcopilot
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Show my team

get_my_team
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this for start, bench and captain questions about an FPL manager's own squad: each player's fplcopilot expected points for the next gameweek with fixtures, and the best XI and captain. It shows the squad and does not score it. Needs their team ID or FPL link, or player names from a screenshot.

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_my_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playersNo11-15 FPL player names (e.g. read from a screenshot of their team), used when there is no team ID. Add the club to disambiguate, e.g. 'Palmer CHE'.
team_idNoThe 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.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / players / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "maxLength": 40,
-      "minLength": 1,
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "maxItems": 15,
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "maxLength": 60,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 20,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: what the result is (per-player projected points, fixtures, best XI, captain) and, importantly, that it does not evaluate or score the squad. It does not discuss the fallback behavior if both inputs are supplied.

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?

Three short sentences with the use case first, the scope boundary second, and the required inputs third. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs to select and call the tool.

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 correctly steps in to describe the returned content, and with only two parameters the input story is covered. A slight gap remains around precedence when both a team ID and player names are supplied, but nothing essential for a successful call is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by stating the input trade-off explicitly ('needs its team ID ... or player names from a screenshot'), which tells the agent the parameters are alternatives rather than complements. That relationship is the key operational insight not obvious from the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific verb-and-resource pair ('start, bench and captain questions about an FPL manager's own squad') and explicitly bounds scope with 'It shows the squad and does not score it,' which separates it from rate_my_team. It also states what the output contains (expected points, fixtures, best XI, captain), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 opening clause gives a clear trigger ('start, bench and captain questions') and the second sentence states an exclusion ('does not score it'), which implies rating/scoring questions belong elsewhere. It stops short of naming the sibling (rate_my_team) as the alternative, so the routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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

All FPL Copilot toolsInspect
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