list_project_bidsList bids placed on a specific project to evaluate competition. Note: returns 404 for projects you do not own.
Bids placed on one project — useful for sizing up the competition. The endpoint is documented but answers 404 for accounts that do not own the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| format | No | summary | |
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only behavior, and the description adds a valuable operational detail: accounts that do not own the project receive a 404. This failure-mode disclosure goes beyond what the annotations state and helps the agent set expectations.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose and use case first, then adds the relevant 404 caveat. The extra word 'documented' is minor and does not meaningfully hurt the overall economy of the definition.
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?
The description covers what the tool does and one key error condition, but there is no output schema and no explanation of the format or page parameters. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding how to invoke it with confidence.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters, but it only reinforces project scope. It does not clarify the 'format' enum values or the 'page' pagination behavior, leaving important parameter semantics undocumented.
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 clearly identifies the action as viewing bids on a single project, and 'sizing up the competition' conveys that this is about the competitive bid landscape. It does not explicitly compare against sibling list_my_bids, but the project-scoped phrasing is enough to distinguish the core intent.
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 phrase 'useful for sizing up the competition' gives a situational cue, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_my_bids. The agent must infer the selection criteria rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.