FoundRole Jobs - AI Job Search & Application Tracker

Official

by foundrole

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Check how hiring software reads a resume

resume_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks resume text for machine-readable sections, recognized skills, contact details, a headline, and experience date ranges, then returns readability findings and suggested fixes.

Instructions

Checks resume text for machine-readable sections, recognized skills, contact channels, a headline, and experience date ranges using FoundRole's deterministic parser.

Pass resume_text to check plain text supplied in the conversation. If resume_text is omitted, the tool reads the previously extracted text of the primary resume in the authenticated user's FoundRole account. It returns a readability band (strong, good, partial) and the single biggest loss. Depending on the account it also returns additional findings and the parsed facts (headline, years of experience, sections, contact channels, recognized skill count). Each finding includes a suggested fix. A saved report link is returned only when the account already has access to that report. This is FoundRole's text-readability assessment, not a test against a named ATS, a hiring prediction, or a file-layout check. Pasted text does not preserve the original PDF or DOCX layout.

The tool does not upload a file, create a saved resume or report, change the user's profile, submit an application, or fetch URLs found in the text. It may return a FoundRole website link; opening that link and uploading or editing a resume are separate user actions. Operational request records and diagnostics may retain tool inputs; this tool does not promise that submitted text is never stored.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resume_text`	No	Plain text of the resume to check, when it is available in the conversation. Omit to check the resume uploaded to the user's FoundRole account. Minimum 200 characters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`band`	No
`mode`	Yes
`findings`	No
`parsedAs`	No
`profileSetupUrl`	No
`studioReportUrl`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.19Nov 5, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / findings / items / properties / fix
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / profileSetupUrl
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / system_instruction
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / uploadUrl
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
Addedv1.1.16Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds crucial context: deterministic parsing, return composition (readability band, biggest loss, additional findings, parsed facts, suggested fix), conditional saved report link, and explicit data retention caveats—far beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-organized into logical paragraphs, front-loading purpose and usage before return values and limitations. However, it is somewhat verbose for a single-parameter tool, with a long list of negations and a privacy caveat that could be tightened.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite an output schema existing, the description provides a clear summary of return values. It also covers prerequisites, limitations, and privacy considerations, making it fully complete for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds modest value by contrasting 'plain text supplied in the conversation' with 'previously extracted text of the primary resume,' but the fallback behavior is largely already specified in 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 states a specific verb (checks) and resource (resume text) with precise scope: machine-readable sections, skills, contact channels, headline, and date ranges. It distinguishes itself from siblings (job alerts, searches, profile, etc.) by being the only resume readability tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to pass resume_text versus omit it, and clarifies what the tool is not (not an ATS test, hiring prediction, or layout check). It also lists operations it does not perform (upload, create, change, submit, fetch), leaving no ambiguity about boundaries.

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