Search FPL players by name, with optional filters for team and position to locate specific players quickly.
Search for FPL players by name with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Optional team name filter | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Player name or partial name to search for | |
| position | No | Optional position filter (GKP, DEF, MID, FWD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search for FPL players by name with optional filtering'. It does not mention case sensitivity, partial matching behavior, result ordering, return fields, or whether results are limited by the current season. This is minimal behavior information for an unannotated tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. It is concise and readable. However, it is so short that it sacrifices useful behavioral and usage context, though conciseness itself is well-handled.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about return values and search behavior, but it does not. An agent does not know what a successful response looks like or how search semantics work. The schema covers inputs, but the context around invoking this tool correctly is incomplete.
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 schema documents all four parameters with descriptions and defaults, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the generic phrase 'with optional filtering', which does not meaningfully expand on the schema. The baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.
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 and resource: 'Search for FPL players by name'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fpl_get_player_information or fpl_analyze_players, which serve different retrieval/analysis purposes. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the verb-resource pairing is sufficiently specific.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fpl_get_player_information or fpl_analyze_players. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or scenario-based recommendations. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.