mcpforwork

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ats_coverage_check

Compare job posting keywords against your stored draft to identify covered terms, addable missing keywords, and genuine gaps. Get a clear ATS coverage check.

Instructions

Deterministic check of the posting's keywords vs a stored draft: covered / missing_but_have (truthfully addable) / genuine_gaps (acknowledge, never stuff).

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": {
      "finding_id": "<finding_id>",
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "ats_coverage_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset_id`	Yes
`finding_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deterministic nature and the critical policy 'never stuff,' meaning it will not recommend adding false keywords. This provides valuable behavioral context, though it omits side effects or permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently presents the core purpose and outcome categories. The line break and colon list improve readability without wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's logic and behavioral policy, and an output schema exists, but it lacks parameter semantics and usage prerequisites. For a two-parameter check tool, this leaves notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention finding_id or asset_id at all. The agent cannot infer what these parameters represent, making this a significant gap.

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 performs a deterministic check comparing the posting's keywords against a stored draft, and enumerates three outcome categories. This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like profile_gaps, though the terms 'posting' and 'draft' could be more explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'deterministic check' implies a verification step, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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