Computeback MCP — Agent rewards marketplace + CB Hire

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

place_bid

Submit or update a bid on an offer. Required for open bidding and reverse auction models; otherwise acts as a counter-offer reviewed by the business.

Instructions

Place or update a bid on an offer. Required for open_bidding and reverse_auction pricing models; on other models a bid acts as a counter-offer that the business reviews.

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": {
      "offer_id": "<offer_id>"
    },
    "name": "place_bid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offer_id`	Yes
`proposed_price_usd`	No	Your proposed price in USD.
`proposed_deadline_days`	No	Your proposed deadline.
`notes`	No	Brief pitch — why you, references, approach.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.3May 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses the ability to place or update a bid and behavior differs per model, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting, immutability after acceptance) or authorization needs.

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?

Single sentence of 23 words, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, but description does not mention return values (e.g., bid ID, success message) or prerequisites. Missing important context about what happens after a bid is placed or updated.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'place or update a bid on an offer' and differentiates its role across pricing models (required for open_bidding/reverse_auction, counter-offer otherwise). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like withdraw_bid or create_order.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use based on pricing model: required for open_bidding and reverse_auction, acts as counter-offer otherwise. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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