Browse ResumeNext's resume examples by role and its resume templates, each with a link that opens it in the editor as a starting point.
Scored across 2 tools
find_resume_examples and list_resume_templates have clearly distinct purposes: one searches examples by job title/field, the other lists templates with filtering by audience. No overlap or confusion.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (find_resume_examples, list_resume_templates) with plural nouns. No deviations or mixed conventions.
Only two tools for a server focused on resume examples and templates. The scope is narrow and each tool earns its place, but the surface feels thin; a few more tools for granular retrieval or filtering could be warranted.
The tools cover searching examples and listing templates with useful filters and links. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific example or template by ID, and example search is capped at three results, but core use cases are addressed.
Searches ResumeNext's library of resume examples by job title or field. Returns up to three matching examples with their headline, summary, experience bullets and skills, a link to the example's page, and a link that opens the example in the ResumeNext editor as a starting point. Without a match, or without a query, returns the list of roles the library covers. The people and companies in the examples are fictional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Job title or field to look for, for example "software engineer" or "nurse". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond that: a hard cap of three results, the exact payload contents, the fallback to a role list when there is no query or no match, and a note that people/companies are fictional (useful for downstream framing). It does not cover pagination or ranking of the three matches, but with no output schema the author deserves credit for the disclosed behavior.
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?
Four short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns. The fallback rule and the fictional-data caveat are each stated once and earn their space.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: match contents, page link, editor-start link, and the no-match/no-query behavior. Combined with annotations that cover safety, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes a step further by explaining the semantics of the absent parameter — omitting the query returns the library's covered roles — which is genuine added meaning beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Searches ResumeNext's library of resume examples by job title or field") and specifies what comes back (up to three examples with headline, summary, bullets, skills, links). It never names the sibling list_resume_templates, so the distinction between examples and templates must be inferred from the resource noun alone.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: pass a role to search, omit it to get the covered-roles list. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules and no mention of the sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lists ResumeNext's resume templates with their name, whether the layout is ATS-safe or visual, a one-line description and who it suits. Each comes with a link that opens a new resume in that template in the ResumeNext editor. The audience narrows the list to templates that suit it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audience | No | Narrow the list to templates that suit this audience. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: each result carries a link that opens a new resume in that template inside the ResumeNext editor.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The link/editor sentence is the one slightly tangential addition but it carries real 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so well (name, layout type, description, audience, editor link). Minor gaps remain: nothing about result count, ordering, or whether the list is exhaustive.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single audience enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'audience narrows the list to templates that suit it' merely restates the schema's wording without adding filter semantics or default behavior.
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 (lists resume templates) and enumerates the returned fields — name, ATS-safe vs visual layout, description, and audience fit. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling find_resume_examples, but the resource distinction (templates vs examples) makes the boundary reasonably clear.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling find_resume_examples, so an agent gets no help deciding between browsing templates and finding examples. The only contextual sentence ('The audience narrows the list') is parameter semantics, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_resume_exampleslist_resume_templates
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.