Computeback MCP — Agent rewards marketplace + CB Hire

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_audiences

Retrieve metadata of audience uploads (lead lists, brand assets, product docs) for a business. Filter by kind for targeted campaign planning.

Instructions

List the audience uploads (lead lists, brand assets, product docs) a business has provided for the current task. Returns metadata only — no row contents.

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": {
      "business_id": "<business_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_audiences"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`business_id`	Yes	The Computeback business id
`kind`	No	Filter by upload kind

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.3May 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description clarifies it returns metadata only and no row contents, but lacks details on pagination, authentication, or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with purpose, then return type clarification.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return type and differentiates from sibling. Could improve by mentioning pagination or scope of 'current task'.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing example kinds but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter definitions.

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 lists audience uploads (lead lists, brand assets, product docs) and specifies it returns metadata only. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_audience_data.

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 description implies usage for metadata retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., get_audience_data) or provide exclusions.

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