Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ponisha-mcp

ponisha-mcp

by Kia-Karami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ponisha_get_bid

Read-only

Fetch a single bid by ID to review your own bid or a bid on your project, so you can verify bid details quickly.

Instructions

Get one bid by id (your own bid, or a bid on your project).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bid_id": "<bid_id>"
    },
    "name": "ponisha_get_bid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bid_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing an authorization constraint — that only your own bid or a bid on your project is retrievable — but says nothing about what happens for out-of-scope ids or what a bid record contains.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the one constraint that matters. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema (so return values need not be described here), the definition covers the operation and access scope adequately. The remaining gap is id format and provenance, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should carry the burden. It says 'by id' but never clarifies that bid_id accepts either a string or a number, nor where a caller obtains a bid id. The baseline for a single-parameter tool keeps this at 3 despite the omission.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one bid by id') and adds an access-scope clause clarifying which bids are retrievable. It does not name the adjacent siblings (ponisha_list_project_bids, ponisha_my_bids) that an agent might confuse it with, but the singular 'one bid' versus those list tools is reasonably distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical implies the condition under which this tool is valid (you own the bid or it's on your project), which is a useful scoping cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no pointer to ponisha_list_project_bids for enumerating bids before fetching a single one.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools