Comunio MCP

Open offers

get_offers

Read-only

Check all open transfer offers for your Comunio team, including incoming and outgoing bids, price premiums, and available credit to guide your next move.

Instructions

Get every open transfer offer, and the manager's spending power.

credit is what can actually be spent and is not the same as the budget in get_account: the league's credit factor lets it exceed cash in hand. Use this number when sizing a bid.

Each offer says which way it goes — incoming when somebody wants one of the manager's players, outgoing when the manager is bidding — and how the price compares to the player's market value, via premium and premium_pct. A negative premium is an offer below what the player is worth.

Read-only: fetches current state and changes nothing. Accepting, declining or withdrawing an offer is not possible through this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`credit`	Yes	What the manager can actually spend. Not the same as budget: the league's credit factor lets it exceed cash in hand.
`offers`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`has_more`	Yes	Whether Comunio is holding back further pages

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it ('Read-only: fetches current state and changes nothing'). It adds valuable behavioral context about the credit field vs budget and the meaning of incoming/outgoing and premium. Since output schema exists, the description need not cover return details. It does not contradict annotations and adds substantive semantic information.

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 organized into a clear intro, a paragraph on credit, a paragraph on offer details, and a read-only note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most critical fact (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: the data returned (offers and spending power), the key distinction (credit vs budget), the meaning of incoming/outgoing and premium, and the read-only constraint. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no space on parameters. It does not need to explain anything beyond what the schema already conveys (nothing), and it adds value through the credit and premium explanations instead.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Get every open transfer offer, and the manager's spending power.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_account by explaining that credit differs from budget, and it defines the semantics of incoming/outgoing and premium. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells when to use the credit number ('Use this number when sizing a bid') and contrasts it with get_account. It also states what the tool cannot do ('Accepting, declining or withdrawing an offer is not possible through this tool'), giving clear when-not guidance. This goes beyond vague context to provide actionable direction.

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