MCP Resume & Email Assistant

Query Resume

queryResume

Ask questions about resume content to retrieve specific details from parsed resumes.

Instructions

Ask a question about the resume content

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "queryResume"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`question`	Yes	The question to ask about the resume

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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.

Deploy Server