get_penalty_takersUse this to find who takes penalties, corners and free kicks for Premier League clubs in FPL, with each penalty taker's chance of being his club's main taker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teams | No | Clubs, e.g. ['BHA'] (default: all 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / teams / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "maxLength": 30,
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- "maxItems": 20,
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 30,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 40,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a small amount of value by disclosing that results include a probability of being the main taker, but says nothing about return format or coverage per club.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action and scope first ('Use this to find who takes penalties, corners and free kicks...'). The trailing clause about main-taker probability is slightly awkward but carries real information, so no meaningful waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Low-complexity, read-only tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, so the description need not enumerate return fields. It covers scope and the headline return value; only the exact output shape is unstated, which is minor here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'teams' parameter is documented in the schema with an example and default ('default: all 20'). The description adds no parameter syntax or default information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('find') and a precisely scoped resource: penalty, corner and free-kick takers for Premier League clubs in FPL, plus the output content (chance of being the club's main taker). No sibling tool covers set-piece takers, so an agent can identify it without cross-referencing schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Use this to find..." implies the context of use but never states when-not to use it or names any alternative. Given that no sibling overlaps with this resource, the implied usage is adequate but no explicit routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.