Generates a tailored CV from a target job title and description, then saves it to your documents for job applications.
Generate a CV and save it to the user's documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the saved document | |
| template | No | CV template to use | |
| job_title | No | Target job title to tailor the CV for | |
| job_description | No | Job description to tailor the CV for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that a document is created and saved, which is useful, but omits critical behavior: whether it overwrites existing documents, what permissions are needed, whether generation can fail, and what the return value contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the generation action and the storage outcome.
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?
With four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify which parameters are required (none are, per schema), how tailoring parameters affect the output, or what the stored document looks like. An agent would need to guess or inspect the schema closely.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (name, template, job_title, job_description) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific double verb+resource: generate a CV and store it in the user's documents. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling generate_cv (generation only) by emphasizing persistence. It lacks detail on what the CV contains or where exactly it is saved, but the purpose is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus generate_cv, or when persistence is appropriate. An agent cannot infer whether to call this or the sibling based on the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.