This server provides tools to interact with Fantasy Premier League, enabling you to check gameweeks, get player recommendations, manage your squad, and make transfers. Authentication (via FPL_ENTRY_ID and refresh token) is required for squad and transfer tools.
current_gameweek: Retrieve the current or next upcoming gameweek and its deadline.
recommend_players: Get player recommendations ranked by form, value (points per £m), and fixture difficulty, with optional filters for position, max cost, horizon, and limit.
my_squad: View your current squad, bank balance, and free transfers (requires authentication).
make_transfer: Transfer a player out and another in; previews by default, or submit with confirm=true (requires authentication).
update_fpl_credentials: Replace the stored auth token from within the chat when it expires or is revoked, without needing to restart the server.
Provides tools for accessing Fantasy Premier League data, including current gameweek, player recommendations, squad management, and transfers.
Click on "Install 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-mcp recommend defenders under 5m with easy fixtures"
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.
An MCP server for Fantasy Premier League. Reads use FPL's public API; authenticated calls use a PingOne OIDC refresh token.
Tool | Description |
| Current/next gameweek and deadline. |
| Rank players by form, value (points per £m), and upcoming fixture difficulty. Filters: |
| Your current squad, bank, and free transfers. Needs auth. |
| Transfer a player out/in. Previews by default; set |
| Replace the stored auth token from inside chat when it's expired or revoked — no restart needed. |
Related MCP server: FPL Advisor MCP Server
npm install
npm run build
cp .env.example .env # then fill in the valuesVar | Purpose |
| Your team ID (the number in |
| PingOne OIDC refresh token — see |
Read-only tools (current_gameweek, recommend_players) work without any env vars.
FPL retired the old users.premierleague.com cookie login in favor of PingOne OIDC (account.premierleague.com). The server:
Exchanges FPL_REFRESH_TOKEN for a short-lived access token and sends it as X-API-Authorization: Bearer <token>.
Refreshes proactively before expiry and on any 401/403.
PingOne rotates the refresh token on every exchange — the server rewrites FPL_REFRESH_TOKEN in .env each time so the new one survives a restart.
If the token is ever revoked or fully expired, call the update_fpl_credentials tool from chat with a freshly copied oidc.user value instead of editing .env by hand.
node dist/server.js # speaks MCP over stdio{
"mcpServers": {
"fpl": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/fpl-mcp/dist/server.js"],
"env": {
"FPL_ENTRY_ID": "1234567",
"FPL_REFRESH_TOKEN": "eyJ..."
}
}
}
}Return the current (or next upcoming) FPL gameweek and its deadline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral context. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying no side effects, but does not detail output format, any prerequisites, or other behavioral traits. The absence of output schema means the description could offer more, but for a simple zero-param tool, a minimally adequate disclosure is provided.
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 conveys all necessary information without any filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 the tool's zero complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It clarifies what is returned (current/next gameweek and deadline). However, it could specify the exact format (e.g., object with id and deadline timestamp) to be fully self-sufficient, but it is adequate for its simplicity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter info, as there are none, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema).
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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'current (or next upcoming) FPL gameweek and its deadline'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like recommend_players, my_squad, and make_transfer, which have different purposes.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to get the current/next gameweek) and, given the distinct sibling tools, alternative scenarios are clear. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or conditional guidance is provided, so it's rated slightly below perfect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Transfer one player out and another in. Previews (dry run) unless confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set true to actually submit the transfer; otherwise preview only. | |
| element_in | Yes | Player ID to transfer in. | |
| element_out | Yes | Player ID to transfer out. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the preview-vs-confirm behavior, but omits details like authorization needs or error handling.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and then clarify the preview behavior. No unnecessary words.
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?
No annotations or output schema exist. The description covers the essential preview/confirm behavior but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., budget, team constraints) and return structure.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema property descriptions, noting the confirm parameter's effect on submission vs preview.
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 clearly states the action ('Transfer one player out and another in') and distinguishes from siblings like current_gameweek and my_squad by focusing on the transfer operation.
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 indicates preview behavior by default and requires confirm=true for actual submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but sibling names make the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show your current squad (requires FPL_ENTRY_ID and FPL_COOKIE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses dependency on external environment variables, which is key behavioral context beyond the empty input schema.
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?
Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with the action.
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 simple read tool with no parameters or output schema, the description fully covers purpose and prerequisites.
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?
No parameters in schema (0 params, 100% coverage). Description adds value by noting required environment variables, going beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Show your current squad', a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings current_gameweek, recommend_players, and make_transfer.
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?
Description mentions prerequisites (FPL_ENTRY_ID and FPL_COOKIE) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. However, the purpose is clear and no sibling performs the same function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Rank available players by a blend of form, value (points per £m), and upcoming fixture difficulty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| horizon | No | Number of upcoming fixtures to average difficulty over. | |
| max_cost | No | Maximum price in £m (e.g. 8.5). | |
| position | No | Filter to a single position. |
Does 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. It states the ranking criteria but does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects. However, the described action (ranking) inherently suggests a query operation, so it is minimally transparent.
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 that directly communicates the core functionality without superfluous details. Every word adds value, making it concise 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?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does and the ranking factors but does not describe the return format, ordering, or potential limitations. The lack of output schema increases the need for behavioral context, which the description partially fulfills.
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 input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (horizon, max_cost, position). The tool description adds context about the ranking blend but does not clarify the 'limit' parameter, which is described only in schema constraints. Overall, the description adds some meaning beyond the schema but not significantly for all parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rank available players by a blend of form, value, and upcoming fixture difficulty.' It specifies a verb (rank), a resource (available players), and ranking criteria, making it easy to understand. The tool is distinct from its siblings (current_gameweek, my_squad, make_transfer) which serve different purposes.
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?
While the description implies the tool is for getting player recommendations, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools or when not to use it. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0current_gameweekmake_transfermy_squadrecommend_playersEach tool serves a distinct purpose: gameweek info, player recommendations, squad viewing, and transfers. No overlap.
All names use snake_case, but verb placement varies: 'current_gameweek' uses adjective, others use verb_noun. Mostly consistent.
4 tools cover basic FPL operations but feel minimal. Could expand with chip management or league features.
Core CRUD-like operations present: read gameweek, read squad, create transfer. Missing updates (e.g., squad order) and chip actions.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
An MCP server that provides read access to your cloud storage providers, bank accounts and more.
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
An MCP server that provides congressional transcripts
An MCP server that provides tools to discover and retrieve podcast episodes transcripts.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mgphp/fpl-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
