Skip to main content
Glama
KhushalB25

resume-scorer-mcp

by KhushalB25
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: one expects structured JSON Resume input, the other accepts free-form text. Descriptions explicitly state the difference and accuracy trade-off, leaving no ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same `score_resume` prefix, with the second having a descriptive suffix `_from_freeform`. The pattern is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Two tools is minimal but appropriate for this narrow domain—scoring resumes in two input formats. Could potentially add a third for batch processing, but current count is reasonable.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the two likely input types (structured and freeform). No obvious gaps like scoring from a file path or returning additional output formats, but the core functionality is complete.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses 'best-effort regex extraction' and acknowledges lower accuracy. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, output format, or what happens when extraction fails, which would improve transparency. Still, the stated limitations are valuable.

    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?

    The description is two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical limitation and comparison. It is front-loaded and concise with no redundancy.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency adequately. However, it omits details about the output (e.g., score range or format), which would enhance completeness. Still, it is largely sufficient.

    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% (one parameter with a description). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description; it merely restates 'Full resume text (plain text, no formatting.)' as present in the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action 'Score a resume' and specifies the resource as 'free-form text'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting it is less accurate and for free-form input versus structured input, satisfying the requirement for specific verb and resource with sibling differentiation.

    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?

    The description explicitly advises that this tool is less accurate than score_resume, which implies it should be used when only free-form text is available, and the sibling is preferred for structured input. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the tool as returning scores and analysis, implying read-only behavior. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but the nature is evident.

    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?

    Two sentences contain all essential information: purpose, input format, and return values. No redundant or missing content. Highly efficient.

    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?

    Given the simple tool nature, the description is complete. It details input requirements, scoring categories, and output components. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers what is returned.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying required keys (basics, work, projects, skills) and providing the JSON Resume schema URL, clarifying the input format beyond the schema descriptions.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool scores a structured resume in JSON Resume format against a specific rubric. It lists the exact categories returned, distinguishing it from the sibling tool for freeform resumes.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Description implies usage for structured JSON resumes, and the sibling name suggests an alternative for freeform. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling or provide when-not conditions.

    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

resume-scorer-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

resume-scorer-mcp 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/KhushalB25/resume-scorer-mcp'

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