Skip to main content
Glama
JesusCabreraReveles

honest-cv

by JesusCabreraReveles
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

score_job

Read-only

Measure how well each CV variant covers a job post's required and preferred keywords, ordered by coverage, so you can pick the right variant.

Instructions

Measure how well each CV variant covers a job post's keywords, best first. Use it first when the person shares a post, to pick a variant; then call gap_report on that variant to see what is missing and why. Extract the keywords yourself in the post's own wording: keywords are the required ones, preferred the nice-to-haves. Returns scores: per variant, the required and overall coverage and each keyword found, found only as familiarity, or missing. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage of the output: en (English) or es (Spanish).en
profileNoPath of the profile folder. Leave it out to use the server's default (--profile or HONEST_CV_PROFILE).
keywordsYesRequired keywords from the job post, in its own wording.
variantsNoVariant ids to score, from list_variants. Default: all.
preferredNoNice-to-have keywords from the job post.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / lang / description
      Previous value: -"Language of the CV: en or es."New value: +"Language of the output: en (English) or es (Spanish)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / profile / description
      Previous value: -"Profile folder. Defaults to HONEST_CV_PROFILE."New value: +"Path of the profile folder. Leave it out to use the server's default (--profile or HONEST_CV_PROFILE)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / variants / description
      Previous value: -"Variant ids to score. Default: all."New value: +"Variant ids to score, from list_variants. Default: all."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description restates 'Read-only' rather than adding to it. However, it does disclose non-obvious behavior: results are ordered best-first, and the caller must extract keywords themselves in the post's own wording rather than being given them.

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-loads the purpose and the when-to-use rule, then pivots to keyword-extraction guidance and return shape. Dense and mostly earn-its-place, though the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value: `scores` with per-variant required and overall coverage plus per-keyword found/familiarity/missing status. Combined with the extraction and sequencing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents lang, profile, keywords, variants, and preferred. The description's framing of `keywords` as required and `preferred` as nice-to-haves largely repeats the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Measure how well each CV variant covers a job post's keywords') plus ranking behavior ('best first'). An agent can distinguish it from gap_report, which it names as the follow-up rather than the same operation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit sequencing: use it first when a person shares a post to pick a variant, then call gap_report on that variant to see what is missing. It also names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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