Score a candidate's skills and experience against a job to produce a transparent match rating.
Transparent skill/experience match score between a candidate and a job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| candidate_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says the score is 'transparent' but does not explain what that means operationally, whether the tool performs a read-only computation, or what the score represents (range, direction, criteria). This is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core operation and the object of the operation. It is arguably under-specified, but that is a completeness concern, not a structure concern.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential purpose and output concept. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without the score semantics, return format, or behavioral caveats needed for fully confident invocation. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 clarify the parameters. It does establish that one parameter refers to a candidate and the other to a job, which maps directly to candidate_id and job_id. However, it gives no additional detail about formats, constraints, or how the two IDs relate beyond the obvious matching purpose.
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 names a clear resource pair (candidate and job) and the output (a match score), so an agent can tell this tool computes a matching metric rather than merely retrieving a record. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_candidate or get_job, but the function is distinct enough from search/get operations. 'Transparent' adds a specific quality of the score, slightly strengthening clarity.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the siblings. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the two identifiers. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.