Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Placed MCP Server

Placed MCP Server

by Exidian-Tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

check_ats_compatibility

Evaluate a resume against applicant tracking system criteria and receive tailored recommendations to improve its compatibility score.

Instructions

Get ATS compatibility score and recommendations for a resume.

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": {
      "resume_id": "<resume_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_ats_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resume_idYesResume ID to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation (get), but does not mention idempotency, side effects, or what the score/recommendations entail. Minimal transparency.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. Efficient, though extremely brief. Could be considered under-specified rather than concise.

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 many siblings, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the score means, how recommendations are generated, or any constraints. Incomplete for effective use.

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% with a clear parameter description ('Resume ID to check'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets an ATS compatibility score and recommendations for a resume, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish it from similar siblings like get_resume_quality_score or analyze_resume_gaps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_resume_gaps or get_resume_quality_score. No context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools