resume_textRetrieve plain text from an applicant's downloaded resume (PDF/DOCX) for a given application ID. Returns clipped text up to maxChars, or empty for scanned images.
Plain text extracted from the downloaded resume (PDF/DOCX) of one applicant, clipped to maxChars. Empty when the resume was a scanned image or was not downloaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | ||
| applicationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: text is clipped to maxChars and will be empty for scanned images or missing downloads. This is useful context that the annotations do not provide.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the core behavior and adds the important empty-case caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.
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 read-only tool, the description covers the core behavior, the clip behavior, and the empty-case scenario. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the exact return shape (e.g., whether empty is an empty string or null) would be useful, but the description is largely sufficient.
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 compensate. It maps applicationId to 'one applicant' and mentions maxChars as the clip limit, but it does not fully define either parameter's semantics or format. The schema provides the required/default values, so the description provides only partial added meaning.
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 exactly what the tool returns: plain text extracted from one applicant's downloaded resume (PDF/DOCX), clipped to maxChars. This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like applicant_get or debug_page_text by scoping it to resume text for a single application.
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?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving resume text for one applicant, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over sibling tools such as applicant_get or applicants_fetch_details. The empty-when-scanned/no-download note helps an agent interpret results, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.