Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

Rchilli Resume Parser MCP Server

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinct: one parses resumes from binary data in base64 format, and the other from a public URL. There is no overlap in their purposes or input methods, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the data source available.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'resume_parser' as the prefix, followed by 'binary_api' and 'url_api' to specify the input type. This naming convention is predictable and enhances readability across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a resume parser domain. While it covers two common input methods (binary and URL), it lacks tools for other operations like retrieving parsed results, updating data, or handling errors, which limits its utility and scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The server only provides parsing tools without any complementary operations such as storing, retrieving, or managing parsed resumes. This creates significant gaps in the lifecycle of resume data, likely causing agent failures when more than basic parsing is needed.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention output format (structured JSON, raw text?), side effects (logging, storage), idempotency, or error conditions. It only describes the input modality.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The single sentence wastes words restating the tool name concept ('Resume Parser Binary API allows you to') before getting to the action. It could be more direct (e.g., 'Parse a resume from base64-encoded binary data').

    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?

    Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and defined input parameters, the description is insufficient. It omits what the tool returns (parsed fields, confidence scores?), error handling, and whether the operation is read-only or creates resources.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Per the rubric, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description adds critical context that base64-encoded binary data is expected as input, which the empty schema cannot convey. However, there is a concerning disconnect between the described base64 input and the empty parameter schema.

    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 clearly states the tool parses resumes and specifies the input method (binary data in base64 format), distinguishing it from the sibling 'resume_parser_url_api'. However, it uses filler words ('allows you to') instead of a direct verb, slightly weakening clarity.

    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 mention of 'binary data in base64 format' implies usage when file content is available locally, contrasting with the URL-based sibling. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus the URL alternative or prerequisites like file size limits.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'public URL' (indicating the resume must be publicly accessible), but fails to disclose output format, supported file types (PDF, DOCX), error conditions, or privacy implications of sending URLs to the parser.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single sentence structure is efficient, but contains filler words ('allows you to') and tautology (repeating 'Resume Parser Url API' from the name). The core value ('parse resume using resume public URL') is present but not front-loaded.

    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?

    Resume parsing is a moderately complex operation, yet the description provides no information about the return value or output structure, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given the lack of annotations, the description should explain what structured data is returned (e.g., contact info, work history).

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params establishes a baseline of 4. The description mentions 'resume public URL' which aligns with the tool's implied parameter needs, though this is not formally documented in the schema.

    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?

    States the specific action (parse) and resource (resume) clearly. Effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'resume_parser_binary_api' by specifying 'public URL' as the input method, clarifying the scope.

    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?

    Implies usage context by specifying 'public URL,' suggesting when to use this over the binary alternative (when a URL is available vs. a local file). However, lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison to the sibling tool.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

bachai-rchilli-resume-parser1 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bachai-rchilli-resume-parser1 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-rchilli-resume-parser1'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server