Freelance MCP Server

setup_auto_bidding

Configure automatic bidding for freelance gigs by setting match score thresholds, daily bid limits, budget ranges, required skills, and whether bids are drafted or submitted.

Instructions

Configure automatic bidding agent

Args:
    enabled: Enable auto-bidding
    min_match_score: Minimum match score (0-1)
    max_bids_per_day: Maximum bids per day
    min_budget: Minimum budget to consider
    max_budget: Maximum budget to consider
    auto_apply: Actually submit bids (True) or just draft (False)
    skills: Required skills filter

Returns:
    Auto-bid configuration status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skills`	No
`enabled`	No
`auto_apply`	No
`max_budget`	No
`min_budget`	No
`min_match_score`	No
`max_bids_per_day`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: auto_apply=True actually submits bids while False only drafts them. However, it omits permissions required, reversibility, whether enabling results in real-world spend, and any rate/impact caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then a clean Args block with one line per parameter. No wasted prose, though the trailing 'Returns' line duplicates information the output schema already provides.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all seven params are covered. What is missing is the when-to-use context and prerequisite/impact information that a config tool with real-world bidding consequences should provide.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: all seven parameters are described, including the crucial auto_apply draft-vs-submit distinction and the 0-1 range on min_match_score. The explanations are terse and slightly tautological ('Minimum bids per day'), which keeps this from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure automatic bidding agent'), which is clear enough to select over unrelated siblings like generate_proposal or search_gigs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from any sibling explicitly or state scope limits.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites (e.g., must a profile exist first?). Agents get a field list but no routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server