Generate a tailored PDF resume for a specific job posting, selecting a saved resume variant or letting the tool choose one automatically.
Build the tailored PDF resume for a job. variant: which resume to use if the user has several (saved for this job; 'auto' = pick automatically; leave empty to keep the current choice).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / properties / variantAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Variant"
+}v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose non-obvious behavior about how the variant argument resolves ('saved for this job', 'auto' picks automatically, empty keeps the current choice), which is real value. However, it says nothing about side effects (where the PDF is written, whether it overwrites a prior build), permissions, or repeat-call behavior.
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?
Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the parameter explanation compactly parenthesized. The parenthetical is dense but every clause adds information; nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should be more self-sufficient than it is. It covers what is produced and how variant resolves, but omits the job_id source, the output destination, and any side effects, leaving an agent to guess at invocation context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It compensates well for variant, effectively enumerating its accepted values despite no enum in the schema. The required job_id parameter gets no explanation at all (format, source, or validity), so half the parameters remain undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (build) and a concrete artifact (tailored PDF resume) tied to a job, which clearly separates it from siblings like cover_letter_prepare or find_jobs. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating the full workflow context, but the action and resource are unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says this is the step after selecting a job, that job_id must come from find_jobs/job_details, or that a prepare/submit flow does not apply here. The variant note implies the tool is called on an already-chosen job, but that is inference, not stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.