Upload a PDF CV from your master profile to replace Magneto’s stored CV, with an option to preview changes before applying.
Sube el CV en PDF del perfil maestro (cv_pdf: una ruta, o un objeto con varias versiones). Magneto guarda un solo CV: reemplaza el actual. Sin aplicar solo muestra lo que haría.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aplicar | No | ||
| version | No | Clave de cv_pdf cuando hay varias versiones; por defecto la primera. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: Magneto stores only one CV and replaces the current one, and without applying it only previews the effect. It does not cover permissions, authentication, or return details, but the core mutation and dry-run semantics are clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and key constraint. It is efficient, though the parenthetical about cv_pdf adds slight ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential upload, replace, and dry-run behavior, which is important for a mutation tool with no annotations. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the preview returns or any permission requirements, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; version is already documented in the schema, and the description adds context about multiple versions. The description also clarifies aplicar as a dry-run toggle, compensating for the missing schema description, but it does not fully explain all parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: uploading a PDF CV to the master profile. It is distinguishable from siblings such as listar-mis-cv and subir-foto, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The upload/replace use case is implied, and the dry-run behavior is mentioned, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listar-mis-cv or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.