Skip to main content
Glama
koalyptus

job-hunting-organizer

by koalyptus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

init

Create a new job-hunting campaign with optional CV, GitHub, and LinkedIn details, and configure the global LLM endpoint shared across all campaigns.

Instructions

Initialize a new campaign with optional CV, GitHub, and LinkedIn. Pass llm to set the global LLM endpoint (baseUrl/apiKey/model), shared across all campaigns.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
llmNoGlobal LLM endpoint settings, shared across all campaigns; each field overrides the value already in config.json. Omitted fields keep their configured value.
cvPathNoPath to CV file (PDF, DOCX, MD)
campaignNoCampaign name (default: "default")
githubUserNoGitHub username
linkedinUrlNoLinkedIn profile URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Global LLM endpoint settings, shared across all campaigns; each field overrides the value already in config.json. Omitted fields keep their configured value.",
+  "properties": {
+    "apiKey": {
+      "description": "API key for the endpoint; omit or leave empty for local providers",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "baseUrl": {
+      "description": "OpenAI-compatible endpoint base URL (e.g. \"http://localhost:11434/v1\")",
+      "format": "uri",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "model": {
+      "description": "Model identifier (e.g. \"llama3.1\")",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important cross-cutting side effect — that the `llm` settings are global and shared across all campaigns — but says nothing about what happens if the campaign already exists, whether initialization is idempotent, or what it writes to disk.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the global-scope caveat immediately after. No filler, though the parenthetical field list for `llm` is already covered by the schema.

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?

For a five-parameter initializer with a nested config object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves key behaviors unspecified: overwrite/idempotency on an existing campaign, what is returned, and any filesystem effects. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the profile fields are optional and that `llm` is a global endpoint; the override semantics ('each field overrides config.json, omitted fields keep their value') come entirely from the schema, not the description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Initialize a new campaign', and enumerates the profile inputs it accepts (CV, GitHub, LinkedIn). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rename_campaign or list_campaigns, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus other setup tools (update_config, update_profile), nor on prerequisites or ordering relative to the campaign tools. The word 'optional' for the profile inputs is the only usage signal, and it is about parameters rather than invocation context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools