Rafe Blandford — career and writing

Check for published evidence of a topic

check_experience

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask whether this site publishes anything evidencing a topic — a technology, a sector, a discipline, a kind of leadership.

Returns supported, partial or not_found, a plain-language statement, and source URLs you can check.

⚠️ PASS A SUBJECT, NOT A SENTENCE. Matching is on whole words, so a long phrase fails to match and comes back not_found even when the subject inside it is well evidenced. 'product strategy' is supported here; 'product strategy across a portfolio of consumer-facing digital products' returns not_found. Two to four words. If you are testing a job requirement, break it into its subjects and check each one.

⚠️ Read the statement carefully before answering the person who asked. not_found means NOTHING PUBLISHED ON THIS SITE EVIDENCES the topic. It is a fact about a selective corpus, not about Rafe — he has done a great deal that is not written up here. Every response carries his LinkedIn, which is the fuller record, and his email. Do not turn a not_found into 'Rafe has no experience of X'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	Yes	A short subject, 2–4 words — 'composable architecture', 'insurance', 'team leadership'. NOT a sentence or a whole job requirement: long phrases match nothing and return a misleading not_found.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`topic`	Yes
`corpus`	No
`status`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`elsewhere`	Yes
`statement`	Yes	Plain-language answer. Pass this on as written — the not_found wording is deliberately about the corpus, not the person.
`scope_note`	Yes
`alias_applied`	No	Set when the topic as typed matched nothing and a declared alias was used instead — e.g. CTO to the published title Chief Technology & Product Officer. The evidence below is for `to`, not for what was asked. Say so if you pass the answer on.
`also_mentions`	No	NOT EVIDENCE. Items where the words merely occur. These did not contribute to `status` and must not be reported as though the site evidences the topic. Offered only as somewhere to look next.
`related_topics`	No	NOT EVIDENCE for the topic asked. Only on partial/not_found. Other topics the site declares that are near matches on WORDING — a route to a better query, never support for this one. Do not describe these as related evidence.
`declared_expertise`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent; the description adds crucial behavioral details: whole-word matching, the fact that long phrases fail, the meaning of not_found in the context of a selective corpus, and the instruction not to infer lack of experience. This significantly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, return values, and two callout warnings. It's longer than minimal but every section addresses a real misuse risk, so it earns its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a single parameter, full schema description, and an output schema, the description covers the usage, return semantics, and interpretation pitfalls. It doesn't leave significant gaps for the agent to guess about.

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?

The schema already has a well-written description with 100% coverage; the tool description adds concrete examples of good vs bad values and the reasoning behind the 2–4 word rule, going beyond the schema's basic instruction.

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 states the tool checks whether this site publishes evidence for a topic, returns a classification (supported, partial, not_found), and gives examples of topic types. It distinguishes from siblings like get_evidence or search_writing by focusing on verification of published evidence rather than retrieval or search.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides explicit guidance on how to phrase the topic (2–4 words, not a sentence), and how to break down job requirements. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like search_writing, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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

All Rafe Blandford — career and writing tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: check_experience answers whether a topic is evidenced, get_evidence returns predefined sections, search_writing performs keyword search, and get_post retrieves full posts by slug. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern (check, get, get, search). The style is consistent and intuitive, with no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a personal career and writing site. Each tool is necessary and has a clear role, covering both structured queries (evidence, sections) and content retrieval (search, fetch).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: checking experience, retrieving profile/career/case studies, searching writing, and fetching full posts. A minor gap is the lack of a way to enumerate all posts or browse the full archive beyond the most recent items returned by a blank search.

Resources

Need Help?