Moxlade — Upwork buyer intelligence

Score a posting

get_job_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

How good a posting is on its own terms, 0-100, and WHY.

Use it to rank a shortlist — search_jobs, then this on the ids worth reading in full. upwork_id is the posting's id.

The number is stored on every posting in the corpus; the explanation is recomputed on read, so you always get both — the score and the attributes that produced it, separated into what earned points and what lost them.

It scores the POSTING, not you and not the client's payment history: budget shape, the client's hire rate and feedback score, and the rest named in the breakdown. For whether they actually pay, ask get_buyer_quality. A score with no breakdown would be a claim you cannot check, which is why one never comes without the other.

Feed-scoped: answers for postings this corpus has shown you — your own search results and saved-search matches. Any other id is refused, with how to bring it into reach.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`upwork_id`	Yes	a posting id as search_jobs returns it. Not a URL, and without the leading '~'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Present when the two scores differ, explaining why.
`basis`	No	What the score is computed from — the posting, not you and not the client's payment history.
`found`	No	False when the corpus holds no such posting.
`score`	No	0-100, recomputed now from the posting as it currently stands. THIS is the one to act on. Present whenever `found` is true; when it is false the whole score is absent and `note` says why.
`breakdown`	No	What earned points and what lost them — see ScoreBreakdown. A score with no breakdown is a claim you cannot check.
`upwork_id`	No	The posting.
`authoritative`	No	Names which field is the score, so two numbers cannot be ambiguous.
`score_at_ingest`	No	Only present when it DIFFERS from `score` — the value written when the posting was first collected, before re-scraping moved its client counters.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds behavioral nuances: the score is stored, explanation is recomputed on read, and it refuses out-of-feed ids with remediation. These details go beyond annotations and are non-contradictory.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, explanation, and scope. Though verbose, each paragraph serves a distinct function. It could be tightened, but the structure is logical and each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and scope. It even clarifies what the score does NOT reflect (posting quality vs. payment history). Nothing an agent needs to call correctly is missing.

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?

The schema description for upwork_id already specifies the format, source (search_jobs), and restrictions (not a URL, no leading '~'). The description merely repeats 'the posting's id' without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool scores a posting on its own terms, yielding a 0-100 number plus an explanation. It explicitly distinguishes from get_buyer_quality for payment history, and names the exact resource it operates on (postings). The verb 'score' and resource 'posting' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after search_jobs, for ranking a shortlist. It points to a specific alternative (get_buyer_quality) and explains the feed-scoping restriction. No ambiguity about when to invoke versus alternative tools.

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

All Moxlade — Upwork buyer intelligence 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

A4.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct, well-scoped function with no overlap. Even related tools like get_buyer and get_buyer_quality are clearly separated by their purposes and descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using clear, descriptive verbs (check, delete, describe, get, list, save, search, rate). No mixed cases or conventions.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is appropriate for the server's purpose, covering search, filtering, saved searches, buyer intelligence, job details, rate benchmarks, skill demand, and plan management without being excessive.

Completeness5/5

The set covers all core operations for Upwork buyer intelligence: searching, validating filters, saving searches, buyer analysis, job scoring, rate benchmarks, skill demand, and plan management. No significant gaps are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?