FC 26 MCP

by INSANE0777

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

le_loan_player

Loan a player to a club by specifying player and team identifiers, loan duration, and whether a buy option is included.

Instructions

Loan a player to a club.

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": "le_loan_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`length`	No
`player`	No	Player name (if ID not provided).
`new_club`	No	Target club name (if ID not provided).
`playerid`	No	Player ID.
`loantobuy`	No
`new_teamid`	No	Target team ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.29Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or what happens when the loan is made (e.g., player movement, budget impact).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence), but lacks structure or front-loading. It is not overly verbose, but under-specification reduces efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, parameter interactions, or side effects, leaving the agent without critical context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, with parameters like 'length' and 'loantobuy' undescribed in both schema and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions.

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 'Loan a player to a club' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like transfer or terminate loan. However, it lacks context about the domain (football management simulation).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like le_transfer_player or le_terminate_loan. No conditions or prerequisites mentioned.

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