Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ATSPrep

by io.github.Devabubakar
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a resume

check_resume
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user shares a resume (pasted text or a file's text) and wants it checked, scored, reviewed for ATS problems, or wants to know what to fix. The headline score is resumeQuality (0 to 100), the same resume-quality metric as Studio; score is its compatibility alias. Adding job_description never replaces it with job fit. jobFit (requirements, evidence and readability, with caps) and keywordCoverage are returned separately alongside the legacy job_fit breakdown and job_match summary; never average these metrics. An AI line judge labels bullets against the published rubric; fixed maths and rules make the score, with versioned rules fallback when unavailable. Lists issues with stable codes, locations and fixes, plus import counts and definitions. target_role or job_description can refine advice without changing the quality headline. Pass language when the resume isn't in English. Resume up to 30,000 characters. Rules version 2026-11-05.2.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoThe resume's language as an ISO 639-1 code ("fr", "tr", "es"). Pass it when the resume isn't in English: rules that judge English wording are skipped for it.
resume_textYesThe whole resume as plain text, one heading, role or bullet per line.
target_roleNoOptional. The job title the candidate is applying for.
job_descriptionNoThe full job posting as plain text, including its requirements (120–20,000 characters). For a link, call fetch_job_post first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The resume's language as an ISO 639-1 code (\"fr\", \"tr\", \"es\"). Pass it when the resume isn't in English: rules that judge English wording are skipped for it.",
+  "maxLength": 12,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description layers on real behavioral context: how the score is computed (AI line judge against a published rubric plus fixed maths), versioned-rule fallback, the 30,000-character ceiling, and the rule that the returned metrics must never be averaged. That is substantive disclosure beyond what the annotations provide.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information (metric aliasing, non-averaging rule, character limit, rules version). However, it is delivered as long semicolon-chained sentences, so the return-value contract is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 contract — and it does, enumerating resumeQuality with a 0–100 range and its score alias, jobFit, keywordCoverage, legacy job_fit/job_match, stable issue codes with locations and fixes, and import counts. For a four-parameter scoring tool this is sufficient to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds outcome semantics the schema cannot: job_description is a secondary lens that does not replace resumeQuality, target_role only refines advice, and language should be set when the resume is not English. These are effects on scoring, not restatements of parameter types.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ('when the user shares a resume ... wants it checked, scored, reviewed for ATS problems') and immediately scopes it away from job-fit tools by stating that job_description 'never replaces' the headline score. An agent can distinguish this from match_job or check_bullets without opening a schema.

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 gives a clear trigger condition (resume shared as pasted text or file text) and lists the intents it serves — check, score, ATS review, fixes. It also clarifies that job_description/target_role refine advice without changing the headline, but it never names the nearest siblings (check_bullets, keyword_scan, match_job) as alternatives for narrower jobs.

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

All ATSPrep toolsInspect
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