Available CV designs
list_cv_designsRead-onlyIdempotent
The CV designs a tailored CV can be rendered in, with the account's current pick.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
keywordise
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds the useful detail that the result includes the account's current pick, but it does not disclose output shape, ordering, or any list-level behavior beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is slightly awkward and does not front-load an explicit verb, but every phrase earns its place and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only listing tool.
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 zero-parameter, read-ony, idempotent listing tool with siblings in the same domain, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and that the current account pick is included. It does not enumerate output fields, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there is no parameter ambiguity. The description's mention of 'current pick' clarifies what the empty-input call returns, satisfying the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
The description identifies the resource ('CV designs a tailored CV can be rendered in') and adds the account's current pick, which separates this from simply listing templates. The purpose is clear, though the description relies on the tool name for the 'list' verb and does not explicitly compare itself with set_cv_design.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings like set_cv_design or preview_tailored_cv. The description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent must infer the intended context from the tool name and sibling set.
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.