Seeker

Check résumé against a job posting

check_resume_against_job

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the user shares their résumé text AND one job description and asks how well they fit that job or what is missing. Sends both texts to Seeker (seekerscore.com), which compares the skills in each and returns the skill overlap percentage, the matched skills, the required and preferred skills the résumé does not show, and whether the experience level looks under, at or over the posting. It is a skills comparison, not a prediction of interviews or hiring.

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": {
      "resume_text": "<resume_text>",
      "job_description": "<job_description>"
    },
    "name": "check_resume_against_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resume_text`	Yes	The full plain text of the user's résumé, 200 to 50000 characters. Phone number and home address can be left out.
`job_description`	Yes	The full text of the job posting, 200 to 20000 characters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`level_fit`	Yes
`checker_url`	Yes
`overlap_pct`	Yes
`resume_years`	No
`matched_skills`	Yes
`years_required`	No
`missing_required`	Yes
`missing_preferred`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: both texts are transmitted to a third-party service (Seeker, seekerscore.com), which matters for user privacy consent and is not captured anywhere in the schema or annotations. It does not discuss character limits or failure behavior, and the return-value summary is partly redundant given the output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by the outputs and the scope caveat. No filler, and the ordering (when to use → what it returns → what it is not) matches how an agent needs to decide and then act.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, this is close to complete: trigger, third-party data flow, output shape and scope limits are all present. The only real hole is the unresolved relationship with the sibling match_resume, which matters because the names suggest overlapping purposes.

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 100%, with both parameters documented including length bounds, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds only marginal detail beyond it: that the résumé must be plain text and that a single job description is compared at a time. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (compare résumé text to a job description) and goes further to list exactly what the comparison yields: overlap percentage, matched skills, missing required/preferred skills, and experience-level fit. It clearly separates the tool from a generic 'match' by framing it as a skills comparison, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling match_resume, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"Use when the user shares their résumé text AND one job description and asks how well they fit that job or what is missing" gives an explicit trigger, including the key constraint that it takes exactly one job description. It also bounds scope with "not a prediction of interviews or hiring." What is missing is guidance on when to prefer the sibling match_resume instead, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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

All Seeker 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?