5개의 실제 ATS 파서를 기준으로 이력서를 린트(lint)하는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다.
3개의 MCP 도구를 노출하여 MCP 호환 AI 에이전트(Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Zed, OpenCode, Cline 등)가 다음 ATS의 문서화된 특성에 맞춰 이력서를 분석할 수 있도록 합니다:
Workday
Greenhouse
Lever
Taleo (Oracle)
iCIMS
이들은 가장 많이 사용되는 5가지 엔터프라이즈 ATS 시스템입니다. 각 시스템은 이력서를 조금씩 다르게 파싱합니다. "0–100 ATS 점수"는 이러한 차이를 평균 내어 노이즈로 만듭니다. 이 서버는 열 처리, 이모지 제거, 머리글/바닥글 삭제, 날짜 형식 특성 등 각 시스템이 실제로 수행하는 작업을 구체적인 린트 결과와 해결책으로 제시합니다.
린트 규칙은 공개된 벤더 문서를 기반으로 합니다. 출처는 docs/vendor-sources.md를 참조하세요.
Related MCP server: decroche-mcp
도구 | 설명 |
| 전체 보고서. 이력서 파일 경로(PDF 또는 DOCX)를 입력받아 벤더별 린트 결과(심각도 |
| 단일 벤더 린트. 경로와 벤더 이름을 입력받습니다. 사용자가 특정 ATS 하나만 신경 쓸 때 더 빠릅니다. |
| 에이전트 세션 대신 브라우저에서 나란히 파서 뷰를 보길 원하는 사용자를 위해 시각적 웹 컴패니언(cv-mirror-web.vercel.app)의 URL을 반환합니다. |
npm install -g cv-mirror-mcpMCP 클라이언트의 설정 파일에 추가하세요:
Claude Code (~/.claude/mcp.json 또는 프로젝트 내 .claude.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"cv-mirror": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "cv-mirror-mcp"]
}
}
}Cursor / Windsurf / Zed / Cline: 동일한 설정 형식 (mcpServers를 읽는 곳에 붙여넣기).
클라이언트를 재시작하세요. 위의 세 가지 도구가 자동으로 등록됩니다.
설치 후 에이전트에게 다음과 같이 요청하세요:
~/Documents/resume.pdf에 있는 내 이력서를 스캔해서 각 ATS가 어떻게 처리할지 알려줘.
에이전트가 analyze_cv를 호출하면 린트 엔진이 로컬에서 실행(네트워크 없음, 업로드 없음)되고, 에이전트가 구조화된 출력을 보여줍니다:
CV Mirror — multi-vendor ATS lint report
Source: /Users/jane/Documents/resume.pdf
Format: pdf
Pages: 2
Words: 542
[ERROR] Workday
- ERROR WORKDAY_MULTI_COLUMN: 35% of lines look multi-column. Workday's parser
reads left-to-right and interleaves both columns into one stream.
Fix: Convert to single-column layout. Move sidebars (Skills, Tools, Languages)
above or below the main content.
[OK] Greenhouse
No issues detected by the simulated parser.
[WARN] Lever
- WARN LEVER_HEADER_FOOTER: Header/footer-like text detected ("Page 1 of 2").
Lever historically drops content placed in PDF headers/footers.
Fix: Remove headers and footers. Page numbers are not needed on a CV.
...이 항목들은 실제 ATS 문서와 벤더 지원 문서를 기반으로 한 휴리스틱입니다. 출처가 포함된 전체 목록은 docs/vendor-sources.md에 있습니다.
규칙 | 벤더 | 심각도 | 트리거 |
| Workday | error | 줄의 15% 이상이 5칸 이상의 간격을 가짐 |
| Workday | warn | 날짜가 "Q3 2024" 형식을 사용함 |
| Workday | error | 일반 텍스트에 이메일이나 전화번호가 없음 |
| Greenhouse | warn | 이모지 코드 포인트가 감지됨 |
| Greenhouse | info | 표준이 아닌 글머리 기호 |
| Greenhouse | warn | "My Story", "Highlights Reel" 등 |
| Lever | warn | "Page X of Y" 패턴 감지 |
| Lever | error | "Experience"/"Education" 섹션 없음 |
| Taleo | warn | ISO 날짜가 월-년 날짜보다 많음 |
| Taleo | error | 파일 크기 kB당 단어 수 1개 미만 |
| Taleo | info | 스마트 따옴표 감지 |
| iCIMS | error | 줄의 20% 이상이 다단 구성 |
| iCIMS | warn | 표준 헤더 2개 미만 발견 |
Node.js >= 18
MCP 호환 클라이언트 (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Zed, Cline 등)
이 서버는 에이전트 프로세스 내부에서 로컬로 실행됩니다. 업로드 엔드포인트가 없으며 텔레메트리도 없습니다. 이력서 데이터는 절대 기기를 벗어나지 않습니다.
cv-mirror-web.vercel.app의 시각적 웹 컴패니언 또한 완전히 클라이언트 측에서 작동하며, 동일한 엔진이 브라우저에서 실행됩니다.
git clone https://github.com/goofypluto999/cv-mirror-mcp.git
cd cv-mirror-mcp
npm install
npm test신호 추출 및 벤더별 규칙 실행을 다루는 19개의 단위 테스트가 포함되어 있습니다.
CV Mirror (web) — 시각적 나란히 파서 뷰. 동일한 린트 엔진 사용. PDF를 드래그 앤 드롭하여 실제 문서의 읽기 순서 오버레이를 확인하세요.
Vantage AI — 이력서가 파서를 통과한 후, 다음 단계는 지원입니다: 맞춤형 자기소개서, 모의 면접, 적합성 분석. Vantage가 해당 흐름을 처리합니다. 유료 (£5 스타터 / 20 토큰, 가입 시 10 무료 토큰 제공).
풀 리퀘스트를 환영합니다. 특히 다음 사항에 관심이 있습니다:
더 많은 벤더 시뮬레이터 (BambooHR, SmartRecruiters, JazzHR, Recruitee 등)
벤더의 파싱 동작 변경 시 업데이트된 규칙 (출처 링크와 함께 이슈 생성)
린트 출력 번역
MIT. Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, Taleo 및 iCIMS는 각 소유자의 상표입니다. 이 프로젝트는 해당 기업들과 관련이 없으며, 이름은 설명적 참조(명칭적 공정 사용)를 위해 사용되었습니다.
Vantage Labs 제작.
Analyse a CV (PDF or DOCX) against 5 real ATS parsers (Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, Taleo, iCIMS). Returns per-vendor lint findings, parse risk score, and concrete fixes. Use when the user asks 'is my CV ATS-friendly', 'will my resume pass [vendor]', or 'why am I not getting interviews' (with a file path).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the CV file (PDF or DOCX). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses tool reads PDF/DOCX, runs against 5 parsers, and returns findings. Does not mention file size limits, processing duration, or if file is uploaded elsewhere, but is largely transparent about its operation.
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 focused sentences: first defines action and output, second provides usage examples. No unnecessary words. Excellent front-loading of purpose.
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?
Despite no output schema, description explains return types (per-vendor lint findings, risk score, fixes). Mentions supported file types. Could add error handling details (e.g., missing file), but otherwise complete for a single-parameter tool.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with description for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not add further details beyond schema, but schema itself is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool analyzes CVs against 5 ATS parsers, returning per-vendor lint findings, risk score, and fixes. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by covering multiple vendors (vs. lint_for_vendor which likely targets one).
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?
Description provides explicit user query triggers ('is my CV ATS-friendly', 'will my resume pass [vendor]', 'why am I not getting interviews') and mentions file path requirement. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or mention of sibling alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the URL for the visual web companion tool (CV Mirror) where the user can drag-drop a CV and see the side-by-side parser view in their browser. Useful when the user wants the visual reading-order overlay or doesn't want to share a file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it returns a URL, implying read-only, but does not explicitly declare non-destructive behavior or other constraints.
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, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Highly efficient.
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?
Adequate for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. Explains function and usage context. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state no input needed, but schema implies it.
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?
No parameters (schema coverage 100%), baseline 4. Description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the URL beyond the empty schema.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Returns the URL' for a specific visual tool (CV Mirror). Distinguishes from siblings (analyze_cv, lint_for_vendor) by offering a different capability.
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?
States when it's useful (visual reading-order overlay, avoiding file path sharing). Does not explicitly exclude alternative uses but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run lint for ONE specific ATS vendor only. Use when the user asks something vendor-specific like 'will my CV pass Workday' or 'what would Greenhouse strip from this'. Vendor must be one of: workday, greenhouse, lever, taleo, icims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the CV file (PDF or DOCX). | |
| vendor | Yes | ATS vendor to simulate. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explain whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. The term 'lint' implies analysis but lacks detail.
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, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. Each sentence adds value: one states the purpose and allowed vendors, the other gives usage examples. No wasted words.
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?
Despite its simplicity, the tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the lint result looks like (e.g., a score, a list of issues). The user cannot infer the return format without additional 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions. The description adds context for the vendor enum by specifying use cases, but adds no extra meaning for the path parameter beyond its schema description.
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?
The description states 'Run lint for ONE specific ATS vendor only', with a clear verb and resource. It lists the allowed vendors and uses examples to distinguish from siblings like analyze_cv, making the purpose 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?
Explicitly provides when-to-use examples ('when the user asks something vendor-specific like...'). Does not explicitly state when not to use or name an alternative tool, though the sibling names imply a general CV analysis tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0analyze_cvget_express_urllint_for_vendorScored across 3 tools
The tools have distinct purposes: analyze_cv for all vendors, lint_for_vendor for a single vendor, and get_express_url for a visual URL. However, analyze_cv and lint_for_vendor both analyze CVs, which could cause minor confusion if descriptions are not read carefully.
Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern but with inconsistency: 'analyze_cv' and 'get_express_url' are direct, while 'lint_for_vendor' uses a preposition. The verb 'lint' is less standard than 'analyze'.
With 3 tools, the set is small but well-scoped for the domain of CV ATS analysis. It covers the essential operations without being overly sparse.
The tool set covers comprehensive analysis, vendor-specific linting, and a visual companion tool. Minor gaps like listing vendors or handling multiple files are absent but not critical for the core functionality.
Generate tailored, ATS-optimized resume PDFs and cover letters from a job description, over MCP.
Public MCP server for discovering open jobs. Search, filter, and get application links.
Document-to-Markdown MCP server — convert PDF, Office and HTML into LLM-ready Markdown.
Document conversion MCP server: PDF to Markdown, image OCR, spreadsheet parsing.
