FC 26 MCP

by INSANE0777

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

le_set_player_sharpness

Adjust a player's sharpness between 0 and 100 in Career Mode, improving their form and match performance.

Instructions

Set player sharpness (0-100). Career Mode only.

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": {
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "le_set_player_sharpness"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes
`player`	No	Player name (if ID not provided).
`playerid`	No	Player ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.29Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the allowed range (0-100) and mode restriction (Career Mode only), but does not mention potential side effects or performance impacts. Adequate for a simple setter.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, range, and context.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could be improved by specifying that one of 'player' or 'playerid' is required, but overall it is nearly complete.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the range constraint for 'value' (0-100) which is missing from schema. However, it does not clarify that either 'player' or 'playerid' must be provided, leaving ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('player sharpness'), includes a valid range (0-100), and specifies it applies only to Career Mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like le_set_player_fitness.

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?

The description implies usage in Career Mode only but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like le_set_player_fitness or le_set_player_form. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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