made.show

Match criteria to evidence

match_criteria

Read-only

Map your requirements to concrete evidence in the portfolio. Returns, per criterion, the matching projects/roles/education/writing (with ids you can use in publish_tailored_view), per-skill evidence, and gaps where no written evidence exists. Lexical and conservative: use your own judgment on top.

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": {
      "criteria": "<criteria>"
    },
    "name": "match_criteria"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	No	Handle or full name
`criteria`	Yes	Requirements to check, one per item, e.g. "Has shipped a design system"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / criteria / description
```
Added value: +"Requirements to check, one per item, e.g. \"Has shipped a design system\""
```
First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that matching is lexical and conservative, that gaps are reported, and that returned ids feed publish_tailored_view, which is meaningful context beyond annotations. It does not add auth or rate-limit details, but those are not essential here.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and then the return shape; the lexical/conservative caveat is short and useful. 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the returned categories (projects/roles/education/writing, per-skill evidence, gaps) and the intended downstream id use. It leaves a minor gap around the optional handle's default behavior, but otherwise supplies what an agent needs.

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 100%, with criteria and handle documented in the schema. The description adds only that criteria are requirements to check and results are per criterion, which is already in the schema; it does not clarify behavior when the optional handle is omitted.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('requirements to concrete evidence in the portfolio'), and the return description makes clear it is an evidence-matching tool rather than a portfolio fetch. It also identifies downstream use with publish_tailored_view, helping separate it from simple retrieval siblings.

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?

Signals usage ('Map your requirements') and mentions downstream publish_tailored_view, but does not explicitly say when to use this over get_portfolio or search_people, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'use your own judgment' advice is helpful but is not routing guidance.

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

All made.show 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?