Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Free ATS resume score and job-match checker: scores a resume against a job description.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
sonnykatongola-ops/resumakeai-mcp
GitHub Stars
0

Available Tools

1 tool
score_resumeScore a resume against a job descriptionAInspect

Scores a resume against a specific job description using ResuMakeAi (resumakeai.com). Returns an ATS parsing score (0-100), a job match percentage, missing skills, suggested keywords to add, and specific ATS formatting issues. Free, no account required. Use this whenever someone wants feedback on how well their resume matches a job posting, or whether it will parse correctly through applicant tracking software.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resumeTextYesPlain text of the resume to score.
jobDescriptionYesPlain text of the job posting to score the resume against.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool relies on an external service (resumakeai.com), that it is free with no account required, and it enumerates the exact result fields returned. It could mention data handling or failure behavior, but it covers the key behavioral facts.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the return values are compactly listed, and the usage guidance is appended without repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the expected return values (ATS score, match percentage, missing skills, keyword suggestions, formatting issues). It also covers cost and authentication. Minor omissions like failure modes or data-privacy caveats keep it from being fully complete, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description ('Plain text of the resume to score', 'Plain text of the job posting to score the resume against'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Scores') and identifies the exact resource ('a resume against a specific job description'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's function, names the external service (ResuMakeAi), and states the concrete outputs an agent can expect, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: whenever someone wants feedback on resume-job match or ATS parseworthiness. It does not provide exclusions or alternative tools, but since no siblings exist, the guidance is clear and actionable enough.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedscore_resume

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is clearly defined in its description.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name follows the verb_noun convention (score_resume). With only one tool, naming is trivially consistent and descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool feels too thin for a resume-focused server. The server name suggests a broader resume assistance scope, but only one scoring operation is exposed.

Completeness2/5

The domain appears to be resume analysis and assistance, yet only resume scoring is provided. Missing operations like resume parsing, editing, or generation are significant gaps that would limit agent usefulness.