List your proposals across all statuses, including invitations to bid. Filter by status or job posting to review bids you placed and received.
The bids this account has placed, and the invitations it has received. Requires READ_OWN. Status INVITED means a client pulled this account into a posting and nobody has bid yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by explaining the INVITED status ('a client pulled this account into a posting and nobody has bid yet') and the READ_OWN permission requirement. While it doesn't detail pagination or sorting behavior, it discloses the two distinct result types (bids and invitations), which is a meaningful behavioral trait.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scope, then adds a permission note and a domain clarification. Every sentence earns its place.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains what is returned (bids and invitations), the permission needed, and the key status nuance. It does not describe the return format or default ordering, but the filter schema and the simple list nature make this 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself provides solid descriptions for limit, offset, status, and jobPosting. The description adds semantic value for the status parameter by clarifying what INVITED means, which is directly useful when using the status filter. It does not elaborate on the filter object or other parameters, but those are self-explanatory from the 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 precisely identifies the resource and scope: 'The bids this account has placed, and the invitations it has received.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like freelance_list_proposals_for_job, which targets proposals for a specific posting rather than the account's own activity. The tool's purpose is immediately understandable.
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 states the scope ('this account') and implies the tool is for viewing one's own proposals and invitations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Usage is inferred rather than directly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.