get_my_profileGet your candidate profile: name, contact details, headline, summary, resume, education and experience.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| resume | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| headline | No | ||
| lastname | No | ||
| education | No | ||
| firstname | No | ||
| experience | No | ||
| coverLetter | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds some context by listing the profile fields returned, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or response structure. The output schema covers return shape, so this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the contained fields in a natural list. Every part contributes meaningful 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 read-only, zero-parameter profile retrieval tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the resource and its key contents. An output schema is present, so return-value details are already structured. Annotations cover safety, and there are no complex behaviors left unexplained.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With no input schema properties, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') on a clear resource ('your candidate profile') and lists the main fields it returns (name, contact details, headline, summary, resume, education, experience). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_job or get_company because it is scoped to the user's own profile.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs the caller's own candidate profile data. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_my_profile, but the 'my' scoping and sibling names make the intended use clear enough.
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 resource and action, with clear boundaries between search, recommendations, and recent searches. The descriptions resolve any potential overlap, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent action_noun pattern in snake_case. Get operations use 'get_', while update, withdraw, and search operations use their respective verbs, maintaining a predictable convention.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose, covering job search, application management, and profile handling without unnecessary bloat or a thin surface.
The toolset covers job search, job details, profile retrieval/update, and application withdrawal. However, there is no direct 'apply' tool, which is a notable gap in a job-focused server, though agents can work around it via external links.