Skip to main content
Glama

read_wins

Extract achievement data from wins.md files to populate CV/resume sections with documented accomplishments.

Instructions

Read wins.md achievements file

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the 'read_wins' tool. It reads the 'wins.md' file from the repository path (REPO_PATH), checks if it exists, and returns its content prefixed with 'Achievements:' as TextContent, or a 'No wins.md found' message if absent.
    async def read_wins() -> list[TextContent]:
        """Read the wins.md file."""
        wins_path = Path(REPO_PATH) / "wins.md"
        
        if not wins_path.exists():
            return [TextContent(type="text", text="No wins.md found")]
        
        content = wins_path.read_text()
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=f"Achievements:\n\n{content}")]
  • Registration of the 'read_wins' tool in the @app.list_tools() function, defining its name, description, and input schema (empty object, no parameters required).
    Tool(
        name="read_wins",
        description="Read wins.md achievements file",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {}
        }
    ),
  • Dispatch logic in the @app.call_tool() handler that routes calls to the 'read_wins' function when the tool name matches.
    elif name == "read_wins":
        return await read_wins()
  • Input schema for the 'read_wins' tool, specifying an empty object (no input parameters required).
    inputSchema={
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {}
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads a file but doesn't describe what happens if the file is missing, the format of the output, any permissions required, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that reads a file. It doesn't explain what 'wins.md' contains, the expected output format, or any behavioral traits like error conditions. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 action ('Read') and the target resource ('wins.md achievements file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'read_cv' or 'parse_cv_pdf', which also involve reading files, so it doesn't fully distinguish its unique scope among alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'read_wins' over 'read_cv' or other file-reading tools. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/eyaab/cv-resume-builder-mcp'

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