Skip to main content
Glama

company_skills

Match workers to jobs by comparing sealed skill requirements against worker profiles, scoring proficiency, evidence, availability, and cost to identify gaps and support hiring decisions.

Instructions

Match workers to jobs by skill: payload jobs (sealed job requirements) and profiles (sealed worker profiles), optionally a taxonomy (else the bundle's); every persisted work order's recorded hours credit the skills its job required, claims are corroborated or discounted by that evidence, adjacent skills transfer, licences expire, and each verdict carries its proficiency, evidence, availability, and cost scores, the team, and every gap.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNo
engineNo
operationNomatch
entity_refNo
project_idYes
bundle_jsonYes
payload_jsonNo{}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes how evidence from work orders credits skills, how claims are corroborated or discounted, and what the verdict includes (proficiency, evidence, availability, cost, team, gaps). However, it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects (e.g., writes to persisted data), which is a notable gap for a matching tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single long, run-on sentence that packs numerous clauses together, making it hard to parse. It front-loads the main purpose but then cascades into a dense list of behaviors without clear structure. It is not concise; it sacrifices clarity for comprehensiveness.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It covers the matching purpose and some output details, but fails to explain how to construct inputs, what each parameter does, or how to use the tool effectively. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the input side is severely under-documented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'payload jobs' and 'profiles' but does not map them to schema fields like bundle_json, payload_json, or entity_ref. The optional taxonomy is mentioned but not tied to any parameter. The description adds virtually no parameter-level meaning.

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's core purpose: 'Match workers to jobs by skill'. It identifies the key inputs (payload jobs and profiles) and the overall matching function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like company_skills_inventory or company_skills_development, relying on the name and description to imply uniqueness.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions optional taxonomy and the bundle's default, but does not state conditions for choosing this tool over other skill-related tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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