CareerGenius

Render resume PDF

careergenius_render_resume_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lays out a structured resume as a clean, single-column, ATS-readable PDF (real selectable text, embedded fonts, no images, no tables, no clickable links), letter or A4, at most 3 pages. Returns the file as an embedded resource (base64); nothing is stored. No AI: the text is printed exactly as sent. Counts one call of the monthly allowance. Without a key: one of the conversation's 10 free keyword/PDF calls.

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": {
      "on_behalf_of": "<on_behalf_of>",
      "resume": "<resume>"
    },
    "name": "careergenius_render_resume_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`resume`	Yes	The resume content, exactly as it should appear. Nothing is added, reworded or checked: this tool only lays it out. At most 45,000 characters of JSON.
`template`	No	classic (serif, centred header) or modern (sans-serif, left-aligned). Default classic.
`page_size`	No	Default letter.
`on_behalf_of`	Yes	Required. You confirm a person asked for this, and the resume is theirs (or they are authorised to use it).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that nothing is stored, that the file is returned as an embedded base64 resource, that text is printed verbatim with no AI rewriting, the 3-page cap, and the quota cost of a call. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and tightly packed; almost every clause carries information (format constraints, storage behavior, verbatim text, quota). The allowance/free-call sentences are slightly bureaucratic but relevant to invocation decisions and cost no real space.

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 nested 4-parameter render tool with no output schema, the description successfully explains the return channel (embedded base64 resource) and the no-side-effects behavior, and the schema covers the content model thoroughly. The one gap is what happens when supplied content exceeds the 3-page limit (truncate, error, shrink?) — an agent fitting a long resume cannot predict the outcome.

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 the schema already documents template (default classic), page_size (default letter), links, sections, summary and resume limits, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description only adds the cross-cutting 'at most 3 pages' and 'no clickable links' constraints, which is useful but marginal on top of the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (lays out) and resource (a structured resume) plus the exact output artifact: a single-column, ATS-readable PDF with selectable text and no images/tables/links. The PDF format itself is the differentiator against siblings like careergenius_render_resume_docx and careergenius_tailor_resume_pdf, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any schema.

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 supplies context (counts against the monthly allowance; without a key it is one of the conversation's 10 free keyword/PDF calls) and makes clear this is a layout-only, non-AI step. However, it never says when to pick this over careergenius_render_resume_docx or careergenius_tailor_resume_pdf, so the choice is left implicit.

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

All CareerGenius 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?