Get resumes new or updated since a timestamp (your standing alert). Same filters as search_candidates. Call daily with yesterday's timestamp; no duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | ISO timestamp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating 'no duplicates' and characterizing the tool as a 'standing alert' for incremental updates. The readOnlyHint is consistent with the read-only nature of 'Get resumes', and no contradictions are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a behavioral note. Every sentence contributes, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage pattern, and distinct behavior. It references 'search_candidates' for filter details, which is sufficient given the constraint that only the 'since' parameter is exposed in this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only describes the 'since' parameter as 'ISO timestamp', but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining it's the cutoff for 'new or updated' resumes and recommending 'yesterday's timestamp' for daily runs. This significantly helps an agent set the parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves resumes that are new or updated since a timestamp, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource ('resumes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_candidates' by mentioning 'same filters' but scoped to new/updated entries, and from 'get_candidate' which likely retrieves a single candidate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit operational guidance: 'Call daily with yesterday's timestamp' specifies when and how to use the tool. It also notes that the same filters as 'search_candidates' apply, which signals an alternative for broader searches, though it doesn't explicitly name when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: subscription, candidate search, detailed view, contact management, stats, docs, new candidates, watchlist, outcome reporting, and saving. No two tools overlap in purpose; the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_subscription, get_candidate, search_candidates). The verbs vary as needed for different actions, maintaining a predictable structure.
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a candidate sourcing platform. It covers search, detailed viewing, contact, watchlist management, subscription, and documentation without being excessive or too sparse.
Core workflows are covered: search, view, request contact, report outcome, save to watchlist. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a remove-from-watchlist tool or a way to cancel a contact request, but these do not severely hinder the main use case.