Skip to main content
Glama

get_match_score

Calculate a match score between a candidate's profile and a specific job listing to evaluate suitability.

Instructions

Get a match score between a candidate profile and a specific job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
candidate_idYesCandidate user ID
job_idYesJob listing ID

Implementation Reference

  • Schema definition for the 'get_match_score' tool. Defines the tool name, description, and input schema requiring candidate_id and job_id.
    {
      name: 'get_match_score',
      description: 'Score how well a candidate\'s profile matches a specific job. Returns a 0–100 score with a breakdown by skills, experience, and education.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          candidate_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Candidate profile ID (use "me" for the authenticated user)',
          },
          job_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Job listing ID returned by search_jobs or get_recommended_jobs',
          },
        },
        required: ['candidate_id', 'job_id'],
      },
  • index.js:238-242 (registration)
    Registration: 'get_match_score' is added to the NEW_TOOL_NAMES set via spread from WEEK1_TOOLS, which includes the tool definition. This enables it in the tools/list response.
    // All new tools that are defined locally (not yet on backend)
    const NEW_TOOL_NAMES = new Set([
      ...WEEK1_TOOLS.map(t => t.name),
      ...WEEK2_TOOLS.map(t => t.name),
    ]);
  • Handler proxy: When 'tools/call' is invoked with 'get_match_score', the request is forwarded to the backend API. If the backend is unreachable, a stub response indicating 'not_implemented' is returned.
    async function handleToolsCall(id, params) {
      const toolName = params && params.name;
    
      try {
        const result = await callBackend({ jsonrpc: '2.0', id, method: 'tools/call', params });
        send({ ...result, id });
      } catch (err) {
        // If the backend is unreachable and this is a new tool, return a clear stub message
        if (NEW_TOOL_NAMES.has(toolName)) {
          send({
            jsonrpc: '2.0',
            id,
            result: {
              content: [
                {
                  type: 'text',
                  text: JSON.stringify({
                    status: 'not_implemented',
                    tool: toolName,
                    message: `The '${toolName}' tool is defined in the MCP layer but the backend handler is not yet deployed. Backend error: ${err.message}`,
                  }, null, 2),
                },
              ],
              isError: false,
            },
          });
        } else {
          send({ jsonrpc: '2.0', id, error: { code: -32000, message: err.message } });
        }
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The behavior is implicitly read-only but not explicitly stated.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Very concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It does not mention format, scale, or possible errors. Given the simplicity, more completeness is expected.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema (candidate_id and job_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 action (get) and resource (match score between candidate profile and job). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'match_job' by specifying 'score'. However, it doesn't explain what a match score is, leaving some ambiguity.

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 over alternatives like 'match_job' or 'search_jobs'. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/Exidian-Tech/placed-mcp'

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