CareerProof MCP

atlas_add_candidate_text

Add one candidate from CV text already in the chat, such as an attached CV you have read; no file or base64. Returns the candidate id (candidate_id); the CV is parsed in the background. For several CV files, use atlas_get_upload_link. Free.

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": {
      "context_id": "<context_id>",
      "candidate_name": "<candidate_name>",
      "cv_text": "<cv_text>"
    },
    "name": "atlas_add_candidate_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No
`cv_text`	Yes	The whole CV text
`context_id`	Yes	From atlas_list_contexts
`candidate_name`	Yes
`candidate_email`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 11, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / candidate_name / description
```
Removed value: -"Candidate's full name"
```

changedInput schema / properties / context_id / description

Previous value: -"Hiring context ID from atlas_create_context or atlas_list_contexts"New value: +"From atlas_list_contexts"

changedInput schema / properties / cv_text / description

Previous value: -"The full CV text (200-60,000 characters)"New value: +"The whole CV text"

removedInput schema / properties / tags / description

Removed value: -"Tags for filtering (e.g. ['senior', 'engineering'])"

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the return value is a candidate_id and the CV is parsed asynchronously in the background, plus that the call is free. It does not say what happens if the same candidate is added twice, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the input constraint, then the return/async behavior, then the alternative route. No filler; even the one-word 'Free.' carries cost information an agent may need.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: input form, async parsing, and returned id. Gaps remain around duplicate handling and the meaning of the optional email/tags fields, but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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 coverage is 40%, so the description must carry weight. It clarifies cv_text as whole CV text pasted from chat rather than a file reference, which is real added meaning, but it says nothing about context_id, candidate_email, or tags, leaving more than half the parameters documented only by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add one candidate from CV text') and immediately scopes the input form ('already in the chat ... no file or base64'), which cleanly separates it from file-based upload siblings. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: an attached CV you have already read, with a hard exclusion (no file, no base64). It also names the alternative for the bulk case ('For several CV files, use atlas_get_upload_link'), so the routing decision is unambiguous.

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

All CareerProof MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?