FC 26 MCP

by INSANE0777

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

le_search_players

Search for players by name to locate and manage them within EA Sports FC 26 squad files or career mode.

Instructions

Search players by name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "le_search_players"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.29Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether search is case-sensitive, partial-match, or how results are ordered. No mention of side effects (none expected for read) or response format. Minimal beyond stating the obvious.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but underspecifies the tool. It is not concise in a helpful way; it lacks essential information about parameters and expected output. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence does not fulfill the tool's explanatory needs.

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 the absence of an output schema and the existence of many sibling tools, the description should clarify the return value (e.g., list of player IDs, names, or objects). It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool's results.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the tool description). The 'name' parameter is implied by the description, but the 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field names.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'players' with the qualifier 'by name', indicating a name-based search across all players. It distinguishes from sibling tools like le_list_team_players by specifying the search criterion, but does not elaborate on return type or scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., le_list_team_players for team-based listing, le_get_player_stats for statistics). The description lacks context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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