Skip to main content
Glama
ThambimuthuAnush24

MCP Resume & Email Assistant

by ThambimuthuAnush24
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: parseResume for extracting data, sendEmail for sending notifications, and queryResume for asking questions. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase (parseResume, sendEmail, queryResume), making it predictable for agents to understand their actions.

    Tool Count5/5

    With three tools, the server is well-scoped for its stated purpose of resume parsing and email assistance. Neither too sparse nor excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core workflow: parse a resume, query it, and send email. Missing features like updating or deleting resume data, but the surface is functional for its focused domain.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'ask a question' without revealing any behavioral traits, such as whether it requires prior state, how it handles ambiguous queries, or what the response format is. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is very concise (one sentence), but it fails to include necessary details about usage or behavior. While front-loaded, it does not fully earn its place because it adds minimal value over the tool name. A more informative description would be preferable.

    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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining the expected source of resume content (e.g., from previously parsed data) or how to interpret responses. The current description leaves ambiguity, especially in relation to sibling tools.

    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 description coverage is 100% (the 'question' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it essentially repeats the parameter description. However, it is not misleading and aligns with the schema.

    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 'Ask a question about the resume content' specifies a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as 'parseResume' suggests parsing/reading the resume file, and 'sendEmail' is unrelated. However, it lacks detail about what 'the resume content' refers to (e.g., from a previously parsed resume).

    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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must first parse a resume) or when it is not appropriate to use. The description only states the action without context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavior on malformed input, output format, error handling, or required permissions. Minimal information provided.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single, clear sentence. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be slightly expanded without losing focus.

    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 no output schema, the description should clarify what 'extract information' returns (e.g., structured data). It fails to cover return values, error cases, or the full context of operation.

    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%, and the schema already describes 'resumeText' as text or base64 PDF. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

    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 action ('Parse a resume file') and purpose ('extract information'). It is specific enough to distinguish from 'sendEmail', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'queryResume'.

    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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'queryResume'. No prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Send an email notification' without disclosing side effects (e.g., non-idempotent), potential failures, rate limits, or whether it actually dispatches or queues the email. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single sentence with 12 words, but it lacks detail. It is concise but under-informative; a slightly longer description with key constraints would be more helpful without sacrificing conciseness.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a simple tool with three required parameters, the description is partially complete. However, it omits important details like validation, error handling, and behavior (e.g., immediate send vs. queued). The lack of output schema also reduces completeness.

    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% with descriptive field names and descriptions (e.g., 'Recipient email address'). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond stating the parameters are customizable, which is already implied by the schema.

    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 it sends an email notification with customizable recipient, subject, and body. It explicitly names the resource (email) and action (send), and the sibling tools (parseResume, queryResume) are for different tasks, so no ambiguity.

    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 guidance on when to use or not use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., valid email address), alternatives, or context (e.g., only for notifications). The sibling tools are unrelated, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

    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

mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server 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/ThambimuthuAnush24/mcp-server'

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