tailor_resumeCustomizes your master LaTeX resume to match a job posting, enforcing deterministic formatting rules for a compliant, role-specific version.
Tailor the master LaTeX resume and enforce all deterministic rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates that the tool modifies a resume and applies deterministic rules, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence, file system changes, failure conditions, or what the 'deterministic rules' actually are.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence and front-loads the main purpose. It is not bloated, though the vague 'enforce all deterministic rules' phrase adds limited concrete value despite taking up space.
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 is too thin for an unannotated tool with a nested required parameter and a vague behavioral claim. It omits what the 'job' object should contain, what the tool returns, and what effects invoking it has. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing invocation and behavior guidance.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single required 'job' parameter at all. The description provides no meaning for what the job object should contain or how it affects the tailoring process, so there is no compensation for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Tailor') and the resource ('master LaTeX resume'), and it is distinct enough from sibling tools like generate_cover_letter. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from other resume-related workflow tools, and the phrase 'enforce all deterministic rules' is vague.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only vaguely implies that the tool is for tailoring a resume for a job, but it does not explain what inputs or state are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.