Comunio MCP

Change a bid

change_bid

Adjust the bid amount on an existing outgoing offer. Specify the offer ID and new price, then verify the ok and message fields for confirmation.

Instructions

Change the amount of a bid the manager has already placed.

This changes what the manager has committed. Confirm the new amount with the user before calling it, and say what the old one was.

Ids come from get_offers; only offers whose direction is outgoing can be changed. The player is taken from the offer itself rather than passed in, so a change cannot end up pointing at a different player.

Like a new bid, the change waits for the next transfer round and can still be pulled with withdraw_bid until then.

Refused before anything is sent if the id is unknown or if it belongs to an offer for one of the manager's players. The new amount is not checked against credit: Comunio enforces that itself and answers per item, so read ok and message.

Check ok and message in the result rather than assuming success.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`price`	Yes
`offer_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether this particular bid was accepted by Comunio
`price`	Yes	Amount bid, in euros
`player`	No	That player's name
`message`	No	Comunio's reason, when it gives one
`offer_id`	No	The offer Comunio created. Needed to change or withdraw it.
`player_id`	Yes	Player the bid is for
`credit_after`	No	Spending power left if every open bid wins, in euros. Accounts for the other bids, which Comunio's own `credit` figure does not.
`credit_committed`	No	Already tied up in the manager's other open bids, in euros
`applied_immediately`	Yes	False for a bid: it waits for the transfer round and can be withdrawn

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, warning that this changes the manager's commitment, advising confirmation with the user, noting the old amount should be stated, explaining the transfer-round delay, and listing refusal conditions such as unknown IDs or offers for the manager's players. It also discloses that the credit check is deferred to Comunio and directs the user to read ok and message.

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?

The description is structured in short, purposeful paragraphs, with the most critical warning front-loaded in bold. Every sentence adds operational value: source of IDs, constraints, timing, refusal behavior, and result checking. Nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating tool with minimal annotations and an output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to call it, where inputs come from, what side effects occur, when it can be undone, failure conditions, and how to interpret the response via ok and message.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: offer_id is tied to get_offers and outgoing-only offers, while price is characterized as the new committed amount with the caveat that credit is not locally validated. It stops short of specifying units or ranges, but the essentials are covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Change the amount of a bid the manager has already placed." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_bid, withdraw_bid, and accept_offer by focusing on modifying an existing bid rather than creating or removing one.

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?

The description gives practical usage context: offer IDs come from get_offers, only outgoing-direction offers can be changed, and the player is inferred from the offer itself. It does not explicitly name place_bid as the alternative for new bids, but the phrase "already placed" and the comparison "Like a new bid" make the intended boundary clear.

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