Skip to main content
Glama

Explain candidate score

get_candidate_score_breakdown
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get why a candidate scored what they scored on one job position: the overall matching score with its per-criterion verdicts, knockout results, applied penalties and the position's full evaluation criteria, side by side. Use it whenever a recruiter questions or comments on a score — it is the only tool that shows which criterion produced which part of the number, and it tells you whether the score is still current or was computed against criteria that have since changed. When score.scoreModel is 'requirements' the client shows the requirements-based score: overall comes from score.requirementsScore (each requirement met with a grade of 8-10 from requirementsScore.version 'v6' on, 6-10 before — at most 8 when it is declared, i.e. backed only by the candidate's own word: their form answer or, when resolvedBy is 'interview', what they explicitly said in the AI interview about a vacancy criterion the profile had left 'a validar' (profileEvidence keeps the profile's own observation) —, partial (verdict 'partial', from 'v7' on: the candidate has it below a measurable threshold — at least half the years asked, or one language or study level below; for years and language levels code places it from the figures the model reports, and when code moved the model's verdict or counted the years itself the row's measured field holds the figures the verdict rests on (the evidence still quotes the model's own reading) —; it counts a fixed 4 with no grade, counts as covered and never caps a knockout), not met (0), or 'a validar' without evidence, which counts as a neutral 5 from requirementsScore.version 'v5' on — scores stored with 'v4' or earlier left it out of the average and graded form answers up to 10, so explain each score by its own version; plus up to 10 points of general analysis, blended 50/50 with interviewPerformance when there is an interview). From 'v6' a requirement weighs 2 when excluding (weight 'mustHave', which includes every knockout and every form question with an expected answer), 4 when an excluding one, knockouts included, the recruiter marked as weighing extra (extraWeight: true) and 1 when preferred, and a knockout not met — never one 'a validar' — caps the overall at 50, after the interview blend, as does a failed interview knockout question; knockoutFailed/knockoutReasons are its failed knockouts (any failed excluding requirement on 'v5' or earlier) plus the failed interview knockout questions, and breakdown, mustHaveEvaluations, the distance/residence penalties and profileMatchAudit stay at the top level of score but belong to the previous score, whose overall and knockout flag are in score.legacyScore — explain the number from requirementsScore, never from them. Every criterion reaches the score (usedForScreening is a legacy flag nothing reads); every criterion must be sent back with its isKnockout, extraWeight, visibleInCareerSite and usedForScreening flags exactly as returned here, because an update replaces the whole list.

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": {
      "candidateId": "<candidateId>",
      "jobDescriptionId": "<jobDescriptionId>"
    },
    "name": "get_candidate_score_breakdown"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
candidateIdYesThe candidate ID
jobDescriptionIdYesThe job position the score belongs to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds substantial operational context beyond that: version-dependent score interpretation, which fields belong to the current versus previous score, how knockout caps apply, and the warning that every criterion must be returned with its flags unchanged because an update replaces the whole list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description then becomes a dense, very long block of scoring-version minutiae, including v4/v5/v6/v7 behavior, grade thresholds and implementation-level details. Much of this may be useful reference material, but it is not concise and does not separate selection guidance from scoring interpretation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value context. It does so extensively, naming the relevant score fields and explaining how to interpret requirementsScore, knockout results, penalties, legacy score data and version differences. Given the complexity of the domain, the description is contextually complete.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both required parameters, so the parameter documentation burden is already handled. The description adds only the contextual clarification that the score belongs to 'one job position'; it does not add syntax, format or validation details beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it explains why a candidate scored what they scored on one job position, including overall score, per-criterion verdicts, knockouts, penalties and evaluation criteria. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from all siblings by saying it is 'the only tool that shows which criterion produced which part of the number.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it whenever a recruiter questions or comments on a score.' It also gives a clear alternative-selection signal by saying no other tool provides the criterion-level attribution, so the agent knows when this tool is the right one rather than get_candidate or get_candidates_with_scores.

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.

Resources