Aleksei Shipulin — CV, projects and writing

Find experience relevant to a role

find_evidence_for_role

Read-onlyIdempotent

Match a role, a hiring brief or a whole job description against Aleksei’s published work. Returns his most relevant experience first, with his recorded contribution, exact excerpts and source links. Paste the vacancy text as is. Keyword retrieval: no invented qualifications and no suitability score.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "find_evidence_for_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language of the returned edition; defaults to English.	en
`role`	Yes	Role title, required skills, or the full text of a vacancy; English and Russian accepted.
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / role / description

Previous value: -"Role, required skills, or a concise hiring brief; English and Russian accepted."New value: +"Role title, required skills, or the full text of a vacancy; English and Russian accepted."

changedInput schema / properties / role / maxLength
```
Previous value: -1200New value: +6000
```

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds substantive behavior: retrieval is keyword-based, results are ranked by relevance, output includes recorded contribution, exact excerpts, and source links, and no suitability score is produced. It does not state what happens when nothing matches, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing work: purpose, return shape, input instruction, and a retrieval caveat. The most useful information, what the tool matches and what it returns, is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, ranking, and the key input constraint, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only material omission is guidance on the limit parameter and on what an empty result means.

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?

The schema already documents role and lang (67% coverage), and the description adds a genuinely useful constraint for role: paste the text verbatim rather than reformatting it. However, limit is undocumented in both the description and the schema, and the lang parameter is never mentioned in the prose, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: match a role, hiring brief, or pasted job description against Aleksei's published work, and return ranked experience with contribution, excerpts, and source links. That is far more specific than a generic search, and the phrase 'keyword retrieval: no invented qualifications and no suitability score' clarifies that it does not assess fit. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from search_content or related_content, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Paste the vacancy text as is' gives real input guidance, and the mention of keyword retrieval implies this is for pulling supporting evidence rather than judging candidates. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over search_content or get_profile, and no stated exclusions, so the usage context is only implied.

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

All Aleksei Shipulin — CV, projects and writing tools Inspect

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

Need Help?