FPL Copilot

Look up a player

get_player

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this for one to five FPL players, e.g. whether to buy, sell or start them: expected points for each coming gameweek with fixtures, injury news, price and price-change progress, ownership, xG/xA and his chance of being the main penalty taker.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "get_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes	1-5 player names, e.g. ['Haaland']
`horizon`	No	How many gameweeks ahead to count (1-8).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / horizon / maximum
```
Removed value: -8
```
- removedInput schema / properties / horizon / minimum
```
Removed value: -1
```
- changedInput schema / properties / names / items / maxLength
```
Previous value: -40New value: +60
```
- changedInput schema / properties / names / maxItems
```
Previous value: -5New value: +15
```
- removedInput schema / properties / names / minItems
```
Removed value: -1
```
First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value lies in what the response contains, and it lists that payload in unusual detail — per-gameweek expected points, fixtures, injury news, ownership, xG/xA, penalty-taker probability. What is missing is any note on lookup failure behavior when a name doesn't match, which matters for a name-keyed query.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the 'Use this for...' directive and then a compact payload inventory. The field list is dense but each item is informative; the only waste is the gendered 'his' and the slightly ambiguous 'for each coming gameweek' phrasing.

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, describing the returned fields is essential, and the description does that thoroughly for a read-only lookup tool. The remaining gap is that batch-size guidance ('1-5') disagrees with the schema's maxItems of 15, and horizon tuning goes unmentioned, leaving an agent to guess at the multi-gameweek scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the description adds only the soft 'one to five' batch hint, which actually conflicts with the schema's maxItems of 15. The horizon parameter (1-8 gameweeks) is never mentioned, even though 'for each coming gameweek' gestures at multi-gameweek output without tying it to that control.

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?

The description names the resource (one to five FPL players) and enumerates exactly what comes back — expected points, fixtures, injury news, price change, ownership, xG/xA, penalty-taker chance — which makes the tool's output profile distinguishable from generic lookup siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary with find_players, compare_players or get_player_breakdown.

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?

It gives a concrete decision context ('whether to buy, sell or start them'), which implies when to reach for it. But there are no exclusions and no routing to alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (compare_players, find_players, get_player_breakdown) that an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?