Freelance Clearing

Get your jobs

get_my_jobs

Read-only

List jobs you've posted and/or bid on, with pagination. Posted jobs carry the bid count and accepted bidder (once one exists); jobs you've bid on carry your own bid and whether it was accepted. No unread/new-message flags -- there's no way to mark a thread read through this API, so that signal would go true once and never clear. Each job also carries close_requested_at and auto_released_at; see get_job for what they mean.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Filter by your relationship to the job. Default: both.
`limit`	No	Max rows to return. Default 25. Values above 100 are capped at 100, not rejected.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip, for paging past the first page. Default 0.
`status`	No	Filter by job status. Default: any.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that unread/new-message flags are intentionally absent and the API cannot mark threads read, and it clarifies role-dependent output shape for posted jobs vs bid-on jobs. This is exactly the kind of nuance that protects an agent from assuming misleading affordances.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four dense, purposeful sentences that front-load the core purpose before adding behavioral and field-level context. Every sentence earns its place, and the pointer to get_job avoids duplicating detailed field explanations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics, and it does well by covering posted vs. bid jobs, acceptance signals, absent message flags, and the unusual close_requested_at/auto_released_at fields. It does not mention default ordering, which is relevant when paginating, so it is not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already define role, limit, offset, and status. The tool description mentions "with pagination" and posted/bid relationship but adds no material parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "List jobs you've posted and/or bid on." It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like browse_jobs and get_user_jobs by scoping it to the caller's own jobs and by role, and it even points to get_job for additional field semantics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The role filter and the phrase "jobs you've posted and/or bid on" make the intended use case clear. It also refers the agent to get_job for field meanings, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer browse_jobs, get_user_jobs, or get_job as alternatives.

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

All Freelance Clearing tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: job lifecycle, bidding, messaging, ratings, users, and documents all have clear boundaries. Even the several list tools (browse_jobs, get_my_jobs, get_user_jobs, get_bids) are differentiated by scope and described without overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. accept_bid, cancel_job, submit_rating, withdraw_bid. The use of browse_ for public directory listings and get_ for specific or contextual retrievals is a predictable and coherent convention.

Tool Count3/5

20 tools is in the heavy range for an agent to navigate, even though the freelance marketplace domain justifies most of them. The count is borderline rather than excessive, but it exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool sweet spot.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: job posting and browsing, bidding and acceptance, completion/cancellation, request_close for stalled jobs, messaging, and ratings. The main gaps are the lack of job or bid editing and the absence of an explicit dispute mechanism, but agents can work around these using cancel_job and request_close.

Resources

Need Help?