FPL Strategy MCP
This server is a rules-aware Fantasy Premier League decision engine that recommends, analyzes, and backtests FPL strategy through MCP tools.
Generate legal hold, transfer, and chip recommendations with reasons, risk, short/long-term outlook, and price economics.
Plan lineups: choose formation, starting XI, bench order, captain, vice-captain, and projected Bench Boost impact.
Search the official player pool by name, team, position, price, or availability.
Inspect per-player forecast signals: expected points, price-change risk, minutes/role security, news, ownership, and uncertainty.
Rank and score legal one-transfer moves under custom weight overrides.
Return strategy details and catalogs: champion policy, benchmarks, research sources, limitations, and tunable fields.
Backtest strategies against historical gameweek files or point-in-time scenarios, including research candidates like patient_chips and external_hgb.
Provides Fantasy Premier League decision-making tools, using official FPL data to evaluate squads, transfers, chips, and player signals for hold, buy, and sell recommendations.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@FPL Strategy MCPShould I use my wildcard this week? Here are my squad and signals."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
FPL Strategy MCP
FPL Strategy MCP is a local, rules-aware Fantasy Premier League decision engine. Give it your current 15-player squad, the players you can buy, prices/selling values, free transfers, chips, and current signals. It returns legal hold/transfer/chip options with the reason, risk, short-term outlook, long-term outlook, and price economics.
It is an action policy, not a promise that one player will score the most points. The shipped champion is deliberately conservative: it uses the validated free-transfer anchor unless a learned action clears the temporal guardrail. See the research paper draft for the evidence and limitations.
Install
macOS or Linux:
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bsovs/fpl-strategy-mcp/main/install.sh | sh -s -- --clients allWindows PowerShell:
$env:FPL_STRATEGY_CLIENTS="all"; irm https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bsovs/fpl-strategy-mcp/main/install.ps1 | iexThe installers download the latest release binary, register it with the selected
clients, and run a fast health check. Use --clients claude,
--clients claude-code, --clients codex, or --clients none to narrow the
setup. Existing Claude JSON and Codex TOML are backed up before they are
changed. Each GitHub release also publishes SHA-256 checksums. To pin a
version, set FPL_STRATEGY_VERSION=0.1.7 before running the installer.
Related MCP server: Fantasy Premier League MCP Server
Connect a client
The default command is a stdio MCP server:
fpl-strategy-mcpThe server writes one readiness line to stderr so MCP protocol stdout stays clean. To inspect the installation later:
fpl-strategy-mcp status
fpl-strategy-mcp status --json
fpl-strategy-mcp status --deepThe default status check is fast and only verifies installed assets and client
configuration. --deep additionally loads the bundled model.
To register an already-installed binary:
fpl-strategy-mcp setup --clients allIn Claude Desktop, add the installed command to claude_desktop_config.json under mcpServers. Use the absolute path to the binary:
{
"mcpServers": {
"fpl-strategy": {
"command": "/absolute/path/to/fpl-strategy-mcp"
}
}
}On macOS the file is ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json; on Windows it is %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json. Fully restart Claude after editing it. The same stdio command works with Claude Code and Codex; the installer can register both automatically.
For ChatGPT or Claude web, start the optional remote transport:
FPL_MCP_BEARER_TOKEN="choose-a-long-random-token" \
fpl-strategy-mcp --transport streamable-http --host 127.0.0.1 --port 8000Expose http://127.0.0.1:8000/mcp through an HTTPS tunnel or authenticated reverse proxy, then add that HTTPS MCP URL as a custom connector/remote MCP server. Do not expose an unauthenticated listener. OpenAI’s API can call remote MCP servers through the Responses API; Claude web also expects a reachable remote connector. The default stdio mode remains the safer local option.
For HTTP mode, http://127.0.0.1:8000/health returns a JSON readiness report
and is protected by FPL_MCP_BEARER_TOKEN when that variable is set.
MCP tools
The server exposes these tools. fpl_recommend_moves is the primary decision
tool; the others make the forecasts, weights, player universe, and evaluation
loop inspectable and tunable.
Tool | Purpose |
| Return the recommended hold, transfer, or model-backed chip action under FPL legality, prices, short/long forecasts, projected XI/bench effects, uncertainty, news, and league context. |
| Choose the legal formation, starting XI, bench order, captain, and vice-captain. Reports the projected four-player Bench Boost increment; normally only the XI scores. |
| Search the cached official pool by name, team, position, price, or availability. Useful for inspecting candidates or constructing a smaller request payload. |
| Inspect each player’s short/long expected points, future price signals, minutes/role, risk, news/social context, ownership leverage, and uncertainty before making a decision. |
| Rank legal one-transfer moves under explicit |
| Return the shipped champion, benchmark summaries, research sources, and limitations. |
| Return available strategies, action kinds, default weights/gates, signal components, and the fields that can be tuned. |
| Compare candidate weights on supplied point-in-time scenarios, or replay the legal simulator over Vaastav-format historical GW files. |
For a normal recommendation, provide gameweek and the exact 15-player
current_squad. You can provide buyable_players and trained signals, or
set auto_official_signals: true and let the server load the current official
bootstrap pool and transparent fallback signals. Per-request weight changes go
under weight_overrides (also accepted as weights); they do not modify the
bundled model or the shipped champion.
For loss-aware decisions, include each owned player’s current price,
selling_price, and original purchase_price when available. The latter is
optional; without it, the recommendation can still score the move but cannot
explain or learn the cost of realizing a loss.
Input
Call fpl_recommend_moves with gameweek and current_squad, optionally
adding buyable_players, config, weight_overrides, and either point-in-time
signals or auto_official_signals: true. If buyable_players or signals
are omitted, the same official fallback is used automatically. Add
league_context when rank/leader information should influence risk. Call fpl_strategy_info or
fpl_strategy_catalog to inspect the served strategy and tuning contract.
fpl_backtest_strategy accepts either:
scenariosorscenarios_path: point-in-time states with realizedaction_outcomessuch asholdandtransfer:out_id>in_id; orhistory_rootandseason: a full legal replay using Vaastav-formatseason/gws/gw*.csvfiles. Use separate development and held-out seasons and starting-squad modes when tuning.
The action learner explicitly carries short/long fixture-window deltas, recent form, value, role security, price-change risk, and any unrealized loss on the player being sold. That lets it distinguish a tactical three-gameweek punt from a season-long core hold and learn when a declining player is worth selling at a loss because the forward upgrade is stronger.
See examples/ for client configuration and a protocol smoke test. The official FPL bootstrap endpoint is used only when requested: https://fantasy.premierleague.com/api/bootstrap-static/.
Development
python -m venv .venv
. .venv/bin/activate # Windows: .venv\Scripts\Activate.ps1
pip install -e ".[dev,remote]"
python -m unittest discover -s tests -qThe model and bootstrap snapshot are bundled under assets/. Historical training and evaluation artifacts are documented in the paper rather than required to run the server.
Train the local historical forecast layer
The research trainer keeps a complete final season untouched. The current protocol uses 2016/17–2023/24 for development, 2024/25 for model selection, and 2025/26 as the final test season. Download the raw Vaastav archive into a local data directory, then run:
python - <<'PY'
from fpl_lab.history import download_seasons
download_seasons(
["2016-17", "2017-18", "2018-19", "2019-20", "2020-21", "2021-22",
"2022-23", "2023-24", "2024-25", "2025-26"],
"data/vaastav",
)
PY
PYTHONPATH=src python scripts/train_player_models.py \
--history-root data/vaastav \
--validation-season 2024-25 \
--evaluation-season 2025-26 \
--output-dir runs/player-modelsThe trainer builds 200+ numeric point-in-time features plus categorical context:
lagged form and volatility, minutes/start security, ownership and transfer
momentum, price movement, team/opponent and prior-matchup form, schedule shape,
cross-season player history and breakout signals, and optional timestamped
news/social context. It writes the selected player
forecast model, a future-price model, evaluation predictions, metrics, and a
data audit under runs/player-models/. News/social columns remain zero unless
an auditable ContextStore is supplied; modern articles are never backfilled
into old seasons. These forecast artifacts are research inputs and are not
promoted to the shipped action-policy champion until the legal season
simulator shows a robust strategy-level improvement.
The downloader also fetches one players_raw.csv roster snapshot per season.
This restores the missing position/team fields in the oldest Vaastav GW files;
the resulting metadata_*_imputed flags are retained in the audit because a
season-level roster snapshot is not a point-in-time transfer history.
To test decision value on the held-out season, bridge the forecast CSV into the legal simulator:
PYTHONPATH=src python scripts/backtest_forecast_strategy.py \
--history-root data/vaastav \
--forecast-csv runs/player-models/evaluation-predictions.csv \
--season 2025-26 \
--previous-season 2024-25This compares the legacy signals and expanded forecasts under the same rules-aware free-transfer policy. It is a strategy smoke test. For the walk-forward action-value layer, run:
PYTHONPATH=src python scripts/train_action_policy.py \
--history-root data/vaastav \
--validation-season 2024-25 \
--evaluation-season 2025-26 \
--output-dir runs/action-policy \
--max-states 4 \
--candidate-width 6 \
--horizon-gameweeks 3 \
--training-chip-depth 5 \
--test-chip-depth 15 \
--forecast-model neural \
--label-policy points_onlyWhen backdated archives are available, add --news-context PATH and/or
--social-context PATH to that command.
This generates legal counterfactual action labels, fits the action ensemble, and evaluates neural actions against the free-transfer anchor over points, value, template, and randomized opening squads. The forecast bridge is walk-forward: it fits point forecasts, direct 3/8-gameweek totals, a next-gameweek price-change model, and a separate expected-minutes model using only earlier seasons. The current career-feature baseline produced 1,476 development and 186 validation examples. After fixing two temporal-grain defects—calendar-window horizon labels and double-gameweek lag aggregation—the clean untouched 2025/26 replay scored 2,076.25 points on average across four opening families, with a best opening of 2,156. The free-transfer anchor averaged 2,008.5 and peaked at 2,073; the anchored cocktail averaged 2,020.75. These are improvements over the anchor in this replay, but the best result is still 257 points below the 2,413 research target. This remains a research artifact, not a promoted champion.
The latest corrected-rules replay is saved under
runs/action-policy-official-snapshot-v4-season-chips/. It uses development
seasons 2016/17–2023/24, validation on 2024/25, and a completely untouched
2025/26 test. It fixes a major simulator defect by using the season-specific
2025/26 eight-token chip inventory and half-season chip gates. The corrected
2025/26 neural policy averaged 1,969.5 points across the four opening families
(best 2,053), versus 1,983.75 for the no-hit free-transfer anchor (best 2,129).
The cocktail averaged 1,997.5 (best 2,069). The corrected run is now the
authoritative corrected-rules baseline; it is below the 2,413 target and is
not a promoted champion. The later external-style candidate is reported
separately below. The earlier v3 hit-aware result was an ablation under the
old one-copy chip inventory and must not be used as the final 2025/26 score.
The public fpl-luck-or-skill challenger
reports 2,431 points from a patient, no-hit, use-it-or-lose-it TC/BB policy.
The local simulator now contains that policy as patient_chips, but the
neural/context replication scored 1,928.25 on average on the untouched
2025/26 openings (best 1,955). The external number is therefore a useful
benchmark and hypothesis, not a locally verified result; see the data-quality
audit for the exact reproducibility limitation and artifact path.
External-style forecast and forecast-optimized opening
The repo now includes a Mac-compatible external_hgb forecast family. It
reproduces the public challenger's minutes-plus-conditional-points design with
53 leakage-safe features: player form, minutes/start security, xG/xA, price,
ownership, transfer momentum, true fixture team, opponent/team form, and
previous-season production. It uses histogram gradient boosting locally, so it
does not require the external LightGBM/OpenMP runtime.
Run the strict walk-forward candidate with:
PYTHONPATH=src python scripts/train_action_policy.py \
--history-root /path/to/fpl-history \
--validation-season 2024-25 \
--evaluation-season 2025-26 \
--forecast-model external_hgb \
--starting-modes forecast \
--label-policy points_only \
--output-dir runs/action-policy-external-hgb-forecast-v1The resulting artifact is runs/action-policy-external-hgb-forecast-v1/metrics.json.
On the untouched 2025/26 test it scored:
Policy | Points | Transfers | Hits |
Neural action policy | 2,160 | 62 | 0 |
Free-transfer anchor | 2,338 | 37 | 0 |
Cocktail | 2,442 | 53 | 0 |
Patient chips candidate | 2,486 | 37 | 0 |
The patient candidate clears the 2,413 target in this strict held-out replay.
Its 2024/25 validation score was 2,357, so the opening rule was checked on a
prior season before the final test was read. This is the strongest current
research candidate. It is now exposed through the installed MCP's
fpl_backtest_strategy tool; it is not silently made the live default because
the published score uses one forecast-optimized opening family rather than a
distribution of random starts.
Run the same candidate through the MCP season simulator with:
{
"history_root": "/path/to/data/vaastav",
"season": "2025-26",
"previous_season": "2024-25",
"forecast_model": "external_hgb",
"candidates": [
{
"name": "published_research_candidate",
"policy": "patient_chips",
"initial_squad_modes": ["forecast"]
}
]
}The binary rebuilds the forecast walk-forward from all seasons before the test season, so this path is part of the MCP rather than a results-only artifact. The exact historical elite-manager alternative archive remains incomplete.
The context files are optional. Each event must carry a publication timestamp;
archived events also carry the snapshot observed_at timestamp. The live
official API exposes current cumulative minutes/starts, current
chance_of_playing_this_round/chance_of_playing_next_round, news,
scout_risks, price projections, and set-piece order fields. Its player
history exposes realized minutes and starts, not historical probability
snapshots; use scripts/fetch_fplcache_context.py to reconstruct those
point-in-time beliefs. The feature builder cuts context off at the simulated
gameweek deadline (90 minutes before the first fixture), not at kickoff.
Supported structured event types
include injury, availability, suspension, rotation,
lineup_predicted, lineup_confirmed, lineup_benched, set_piece, and
transfer. Store the analyzed sentiment, source, reliability, player/team
entity, and expiry alongside the text so the backtest can audit what was known.
See docs/context-data-contract.md.
The validated official archive replay sampled 1,722 snapshots through 1 August 2026, produced 9,366 interval/news events, improved validation action RMSE from 9.016 to 8.670, but reduced the held-out 2025/26 neural policy to 2,007.5 mean points. It is therefore an inspectable context ablation, not part of the shipped champion until the action layer gates and calibrates these signals.
For a model-family ablation, add --forecast-model ridge. The expanded ridge
run reached 2,189 points in an earlier replay, but that result used the
pre-fix temporal grain and is not comparable to the clean result above. The
direct-horizon neural and price-aware variants are retained as inspectable
research outputs; they are not evidence of a winning strategy by themselves.
The optional --starting-modes ... forecast mode adds a legal
forecast-optimized opening squad. Under the older neural/ridge bridge it
reached 2,162 points on 2025/26 and was not promoted. The newer
external_hgb replay above is a separate, validation-approved forecast
candidate and should not be conflated with that older ablation.
The hit-aware replay is saved under
runs/action-policy-official-snapshot-v3-hit-aware/. It generated 165 paid-hit
and 453 multi-transfer counterfactual actions. On untouched 2025/26, its
neural policy averaged 1,986 points (best opening 2,114), versus 1,983.75
(best 2,129) for the no-hit anchor. This is a useful coverage fix and a
negative strategy result under the pre-chip-fix simulator. The corrected-rule
follow-up is v4 above.
Observed elite-manager benchmark
The repo also includes a provenance-tracked aggregate benchmark from a public
archive of 24,041 complete 2025/26 manager seasons under
data/elite_managers/. It includes transfer gain, transfer count, hits,
captain agreement, chip usage, and transfer timing by manager rank band. To
inspect the observed behavior profile locally:
PYTHONPATH=src python scripts/analyze_elite_managers.py \
--autopsy data/elite_managers/autopsy_all.csv \
--output runs/elite-manager-benchmark/summary.jsonTo inspect the pre-deadline conditions around observed transfers, including recent points/minutes, price, ownership, transfer momentum, and a separate forward-outcome audit:
PYTHONPATH=src python scripts/analyze_observed_manager_decisions.py \
--history-root /path/to/fpl-history \
--output runs/elite-manager-benchmark/decision-audit.jsonThe top-100 band has a median 325-point net transfer gain, 62 transfers, 4
hits, 0 unused chips, 71.1% captain agreement, and 17 hours' median timing;
the top-10k band has a median 302-point transfer gain, 63 transfers, 4 hits,
0 unused chips, and 79.0% captain agreement. These are descriptive
benchmarks, not causal labels. The shipped loader deliberately excludes final
rank and final points from behavior features. The aggregate table cannot yet
identify exact weekly alternatives. The detailed 2025/26 weekly archive is now present under
data/elite_managers/season_winners_2025-26/ and is held out from training.
Pre-2025/26 weekly manager archives are still needed for leakage-safe direct
imitation or inverse-decision modeling. The local 2025/26 decision audit found
that top-100 managers bought players with a higher prior three-gameweek point
rate (13.15 versus 12.61 for players sold), slightly lower prior three-
gameweek minutes (216.9 versus 223.7), lower prior ownership, and stronger
positive transfer momentum. The following-three-gameweek points are retained
only as a quarantined outcome audit, never as model features.
To fit descriptive, leakage-audited behavior heads for transfer/hold, bundles, paid hits, chips, and incoming-versus-outgoing player signals:
PYTHONPATH=src python scripts/reverse_engineer_observed_actions.py \
--history-root /path/to/fpl-history \
--output runs/elite-manager-benchmark/action-heads.jsonSee observed action heads for the measured
behavior metrics and the data needed before these heads can train on older
seasons. The patient_chips simulator challenger is also documented there;
it is not the promoted policy.
Data coverage and missing signals
The archive is not missing the basic FPL history: it contains 247,896 raw player-fixture rows across ten seasons (2016/17 through 2025/26), including gameweek points, minutes, starts, form, ownership, transfers, prices, team scores, opponents, and fixture timing. The model turns this into 286 point-in-time features and keeps the 2025/26 season completely out of fitting and model selection.
The important gaps are contextual rather than raw player rows. The public
snapshot archive now supplies official news/availability and set-piece
intervals, and data/elite_managers/ supplies an aggregate observed-manager
benchmark. We still do not have each elite manager's exact point-in-time
alternative set wired into action labels, nor a complete timestamped
expected-minutes history, press-conference/predicted-lineup/social stream, or
richer historical fixture-strength feed. The pipeline has a leakage-safe
expected-minutes model and a full official-context ablation, but neither is
currently a validated strategy improvement. The oldest gameweek
files also need season-level roster snapshots to fill team/position metadata;
those rows are flagged and are not treated as point-in-time transfer history.
News/social signals require an explicitly supplied timestamped context archive
in the historical trainer.
The temporal audit found and fixed 293 three-gameweek label mismatches caused
by skipping blank calendar gameweeks, plus inconsistent lag values in 416
double-gameweek player groups. The current run uses calendar-window labels
and one aggregated player/gameweek grain for lags and horizon/price models.
Details and the remediation plan are in docs/data-quality-audit.md.
License
MIT. This is an independent research tool and is not affiliated with the Premier League or Fantasy Premier League.
Available Tools
2 toolsfpl_recommend_movesB
Return legal FPL transfer moves for the current gameweek using the frozen champion strategy by default. Give a full 15-player current squad, buyable players, point-in-time signals or enable auto_official_signals, bank/free transfers, unused chips, and optional mini-league standings context. The default champion ranks hold and legal free transfers; explicit hybrid challengers can rank Wildcard, Free Hit, Bench Boost, and Triple Captain when model-backed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| config | Yes | ||
| signals | No | ||
| gameweek | Yes | ||
| strategy | No | champion | |
| chips_used | No | Alternative to chips_available: chips already used this season. | |
| model_path | No | ||
| current_squad | Yes | ||
| bootstrap_path | No | ||
| fetch_official | No | When auto_official_signals is true, fetch the current official bootstrap instead of using the local snapshot. | |
| league_context | No | ||
| buyable_players | Yes | ||
| chips_available | No | Unused chips at this deadline. If omitted, all four are assumed available. | |
| auto_official_signals | No | If true, signals may be omitted and are built from a local bootstrap snapshot or the official API. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the default 'frozen champion' strategy, that default champion holds are legal free transfers, and that hybrid chip use only occurs when model-backed. However, terms like 'frozen champion strategy' and 'hybrid challengers' are domain jargon and are not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three dense sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds information, though some phrasing is jargon-heavy and slightly clunky. Overall it is appropriately sized for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main inputs and the default behavior, but the required config parameter is never explained and there is no output schema to clarify the return structure. Given 14 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 29%, but the description adds meaning for several key parameters: full 15-player current squad, buyable players, point-in-time signals or auto_official_signals, unused chips, and optional mini-league context. It does not clarify the required config object, limit, model paths, or bootstrap paths, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Return legal FPL transfer moves for the current gameweek') and identifies its core resource and default strategy. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool fpl_strategy_info, but the recommend/info distinction is clear from the phrasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus fpl_strategy_info or any other alternative. It mentions default vs hybrid strategies, which is parameter-level guidance, but not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fpl_strategy_infoA
Return the selected strategy, benchmark status, research sources, and known limitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only action by using 'Return' and lists 'known limitations' as an output, but it does not disclose specifics such as data sources, staleness, or what the benchmark status is compared against.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists exactly what is returned, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless info tool with no output schema, the description names all four return categories and gives a reasonable expectation of the payload. It could add context about how 'selected' is determined, but nothing is missing that would prevent an agent from invoking it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource: the selected strategy, benchmark status, research sources, and known limitations. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling fpl_recommend_moves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus fpl_recommend_moves, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the noun phrase 'selected strategy,' but the description never states the decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v0.1.4- First observed
fpl_recommend_moves - First observed
fpl_strategy_info
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly distinct: one generates transfer recommendations, the other provides meta-information about the strategy itself. There is no overlap in purpose or output.
Both tools share the 'fpl_' prefix and use readable noun/verb combinations. 'fpl_recommend_moves' follows verb_noun while 'fpl_strategy_info' is noun_noun, a minor deviation from a strict pattern.
Two tools is a thin surface for a strategy server, but it covers the core need of getting recommendations and understanding the strategy. It feels slightly sparse but not unreasonable.
The domain is FPL strategy recommendations, and the pair covers the main action (recommend moves) and necessary context (strategy info). A tool to explicitly set or switch strategies is missing, but the primary workflow is supported.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Read-only fantasy analysis for ESPN, Yahoo, and Sleeper leagues via MCP
Read-only ESPN, Sleeper, and Fantrax fantasy leagues for Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI tools.
- NFL MCPOAuthcom.nflmcp
NFL analytics tools for AI agents: stats, fantasy, injuries, schedules, and advanced analysis.
Football fixtures, standings, and odds intelligence for AI agents.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAI-powered Fantasy Premier League assistant — scored captain picks, transfer suggestions, differentials, fixture outlook, price predictions, live points, and a full manager hub that auto-detects your squad, bank balance, and free transfers.21310MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to analyze Fantasy Premier League data, providing tools for player search, fixture analysis, manager comparisons, and strategy prompts for transfer planning and lineup selection.1913 PyPI1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables Fantasy Premier League squad management with custom tools for player search, fixture outlook, tier classification, hit math, and chip timing, all using public FPL data without requiring login credentials.1-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides tools and resources to interact with the Fantasy Premier League API, enabling player analysis, fixture insights, and team management through natural language.-