Fetches the current and next FPL gameweek plus the transfer deadline, enabling agents to answer 'this week' or 'next week' questions and state time left to make transfers.
The current and next FPL gameweek and the transfer deadline, live from the FPL API. Use it to anchor 'this week' / 'next week' questions and to say how long a manager has left to make transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data is live from the FPL API, i.e. freshness is guaranteed rather than cached, which matters for deadline calculations. It does not describe the response shape, which keeps it at a 4.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the actionable use case. No filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter, read-only utility with annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, freshness, and use cases. It could name the returned fields (current GW id, next GW id, deadline timestamp), but with no output schema this is a minor gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's framing of the three returned values is a small bonus.
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?
States exactly what is returned: the current gameweek, the next gameweek, and the transfer deadline, sourced live from the FPL API. No sibling (fixtures, players, squads) covers this temporal anchor, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.
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?
Gives concrete usage contexts: anchoring 'this week'/'next week' questions and computing time left before the transfer deadline. It does not mention when not to use it, but no sibling overlaps, so the omission is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.