maxcv — CV tailoring
Server Details
Score and tailor your CV/resume against a job posting — for AI agents and humans, no-login trial.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools, score_cv and tailor_cv, have clearly distinct purposes: one evaluates the match, the other performs the tailoring. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools consistently use the verb_noun pattern with snake_case (score_cv, tailor_cv), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but perfectly scoped for its purpose: scoring and tailoring a CV. It covers the core workflow without unnecessary extras.
The server provides a complete workflow: first understand the gap via scoring, then tailor the CV. The tailor tool also returns match score, role-fit notes, and interview prep, covering all user needs. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsscore_cvAInspect
Score how well a CV/resume matches a specific job posting. Fast and cheap — returns the original match score and the score after tailoring, plus requirement counts. Use this first to show the user the gap before a full tailor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cvText | Yes | The full CV/resume as plain text. | |
| jobDescription | Yes | The job posting text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description explains the tool returns specific outputs (scores and requirement counts) and characterizes it as 'fast and cheap.' Does not mention side effects or limitations, but adequate for a simple scoring tool.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose and returns, plus a usage recommendation. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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?
Given low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return values, and usage context. Missing output format details, but mentions return items sufficiently for agent understanding.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond their names and types.
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?
Clearly states the tool scores CV/resume match to job posting, specifies return values (original and tailored scores, requirement counts), and distinguishes from sibling tool tailor_cv by recommending use before full tailoring.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this first to show the user the gap before a full tailor,' providing clear context and implicit alternative. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but sufficient for guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tailor_cvAInspect
Tailor a CV/resume to a specific job posting: rewrites the CV with the posting's ATS keywords (never fabricating skills not already present), and returns the tailored CV, a match score, role-fit notes and interview prep. Trial is rate-limited per IP; for unlimited use the user should sign up at maxcv.ai.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cvText | Yes | The full CV/resume as plain text. | |
| jobDescription | Yes | The job posting text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it never fabricates skills not already present, and that it returns multiple output items. No mention of auth needs or destructive effects, but the behavior is adequately described.
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?
Two sentences, no waste. First sentence front-loads purpose and key behavior (no fabrication), second adds output details and rate-limit info. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values: tailored CV, match score, role-fit notes, interview prep. Also notes the critical constraint on skill fabrication. Could add more on output format, but sufficient for an AI agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds context about ATS keywords but does not provide additional meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states the verb 'Tailor' and the resource 'CV/resume to a specific job posting'. It explains the action of rewriting with ATS keywords and lists the return items, distinguishing it from sibling 'score_cv' which likely only scores.
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?
Implies usage when a CV and job posting are given. Mentions rate limiting and alternative for unlimited use via sign-up. Could explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if only scoring needed), but context with sibling helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!