check_cvFor a person who wants feedback on their CV. Checks it against the same rules the CV Chap Chap builder uses: complete contact details, a summary, at least two duties and dates for every job, education, at least five skills and nothing left in [brackets]. Returns each check with a fix. Reads only the CV it is given and stores nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cv | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them with 'Reads only the CV it is given and stores nothing' – useful reassurance about no persistence. 'Returns each check with a fix' discloses the output shape, which no output schema provides, though it doesn't describe severity levels or ordering of results.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences: purpose plus rule set first, behavioral guarantees last. Every clause carries information – the rule enumeration is dense but each item maps to a check the agent will receive back.
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 single-parameter, read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, that fixes are returned, and that nothing is stored. It doesn't say what the result container looks like (pass/fail counts, ordering) but is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0% but nested fields carry many descriptions, so the schema does much of the work for individual attributes. The description adds value by naming which parts are actually exercised (contact details, summary, duties/dates, education, skills, brackets), but gives no format or shape details for the single 'cv' object beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Checks' a 'CV') and pins down the exact rule set used, which clearly separates it from get_cv_format_guide (guidance) and save_cv_draft (persistence). An agent can identify the tool from the first sentence.
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?
'For a person who wants feedback on their CV' gives a clear usage context, and the rule list implies it is a validation step rather than a generation step. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it (e.g. before vs. after save_cv_draft).
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.