The exact CV that was sent
get_sent_cv_pdfRead-onlyIdempotent
The tailored CV PDF that went to the employer for one application, returned as a file.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_id | Yes |
keywordise
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by stating that the result is returned as a file rather than structured data, and that it is the exact artifact sent to the employer.
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?
A single, efficient sentence conveys the resource, scope, and output format without redundancy. The title reinforces the key distinguishing idea: the exact CV that was sent.
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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the input, scope, and output type. It does not mention edge cases like an application with no sent CV, but the tool's simplicity and annotations make the definition sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only loosely connects application_id to 'one application.' It does not explain the expected ID format, where to obtain it, or behavior for invalid or missing applications.
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 clearly identifies the resource: the exact tailored CV PDF that was sent to an employer for one application, returned as a file. It distinguishes itself from siblings like preview_tailored_cv and upload_cv by emphasizing the sent, employer-bound artifact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description scopes the tool to 'one application,' implying it should be used when the exact sent CV for a specific application is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a preview is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tool purposes are generally distinct and well-described, but a few clusters overlap in function: answer_screening_question vs save_answer both write to the answer book, get_my_profile vs get_account both report plan status, and the CV preview/sent-CV/base-CV tools could be confused. The detailed descriptions mitigate most misselection, so this is only a minor issue.
Naming Consistency4/5
The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like list_, get_, update_, create_, delete_, and start_/stop_. Minor deviations such as login, describe_what_i_want, and the get_my_* vs list_* alternation prevent a perfect score, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
49 tools is far above the 25+ threshold and will burden agent tool selection even though many are legitimate single-purpose operations. Several groups could be consolidated—billing links, API-key management, and the CV PDF family—without hurting clarity.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the full lifecycle: account creation/auth, profile and CV, targeting, matching, apply runs, screening answers, tracking, billing, export, and deletion. Minor gaps remain, such as no application-level detail/withdrawal endpoint and no direct way to save a parsed CV without re-uploading, but agents can work around them.