FC 26 MCP

by INSANE0777

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

le_transfer_player

Transfers a player to a club with customizable contract and fee details.

Instructions

Transfer 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_transfer_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wage`	No
`player`	No	Player name (if ID not provided).
`new_club`	No	Target club name (if ID not provided).
`playerid`	No	Player ID.
`new_teamid`	No	Target team ID.
`from_teamid`	No
`transfersum`	No
`release_clause`	No
`contract_length`	No

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?

The description only states 'Transfer a player' without disclosing side effects (e.g., permanent contract, budget impact, team changes). No annotations exist to supplement, so the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word should earn its place; here the brevity leaves significant gaps.

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 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits return values, parameter usage context, and critical behavioral details, making it insufficient for a complex transfer operation.

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?

With 44% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning to parameters. It does not explain fields like wage, transfersum, contract_length, or from_teamid. The schema partially documents some fields, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented ones.

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 action ('Transfer a player to a club') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like le_loan_player, which also involve moving a player. The purpose is clear but lacks distinctiveness.

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., loan vs permanent transfer, or usage with IDs vs names). There are no explicit conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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