Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

cv-maker-resume-templates

by io.github.theluckystrike
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Printable resume HTML

resume_to_html

Call this tool to write the resume as semantic HTML with a print stylesheet and return where it went; print it to PDF from a browser, because there is no doc_to_pdf here. Bullets are trimmed to fit max_pages. Free.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "resume_to_html"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
variantNo
out_pathNoWhere to write the .html. Defaults to <data dir>/documents/<name>-resume.html, numbered -2, -3, ... if that exists.
max_pagesNoBullets are trimmed to fit this many pages against a measured word budget. Default 2.
overwriteNoReplace an existing file at out_path. Default false: the call fails and nothing is written.
target_roleNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool writes a file, returns the path, and trims bullets to fit max_pages. It also notes 'Free' (likely cost). These are useful behavioral traits beyond the structured fields.

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 description is brief (three sentences) and front-loads the core action. The extra note about printing to PDF and the 'Free' tag are arguably useful, though 'Free' is terse and could be placed better. Overall, it is concise without waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value format beyond 'where it went', does not describe the variant or target_role parameters, and omits failure behavior (e.g., when out_path exists and overwrite is false). The schema covers some params, but the description does not fill the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 60% (out_path, max_pages, overwrite have descriptions; variant and target_role do not). The description adds meaning for max_pages ('bullets are trimmed to fit max_pages') and implicitly for out_path via 'return where it went', but it does not address variant or target_role at all. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action (write the resume as semantic HTML) and the resource (resume) with a print stylesheet, and notes it returns the location. It is clear about the output format and the printing workflow, though it does not explicitly differentiate from resume_to_markdown or other siblings. The mention of 'there is no doc_to_pdf here' provides some context but not a direct sibling comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description instructs to call the tool for HTML output and mentions printing to PDF from a browser, and that doc_to_pdf is unavailable. However, it does not specify when not to use it, nor does it mention the sibling resume_to_markdown or other alternatives. The guidance is present but incomplete.

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

All cv-maker-resume-templates 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