Skip to main content
Glama
mutamiri-sudo

ats-resume-writer

by mutamiri-sudo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely different purposes: one provides information about access and configuration, the other performs the actual resume rewriting. No ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_access_info, rewrite_resume), making the naming predictable and clear.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels scoped very narrowly. While the core functionality is present, the domain suggests potential for additional tools (e.g., list templates, validate resume), making it borderline thin.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers the main rewrite and access info, but lacks tools for managing multiple resumes, checking access code validity independently, or exploring companion resources. Minor gaps exist.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses strict truthfulness guardrails (no invented details), return formats, and access code requirement. Adds behavioral context beyond basic operation.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, guardrails, return formats, prerequisite. No extraneous text.

    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?

    Covers input, output (text/JSON), behavioral constraints, prerequisite (access code), and sibling tool guidance. No output schema, but description explains return formats adequately. Complete for a rewriting tool of moderate complexity.

    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 description coverage is 33% (only 'format' documented). Description compensates by explaining the role of 'resume' and 'job_description', and the guardrails applied. Adds meaning beyond schema for undocumented parameters.

    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?

    Description uses specific verb ('rewrite'), target resource ('resume'), and context ('maximize ATS match score'). Explicitly names sibling tool as alternative for access code retrieval, distinguishing the two.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    States when to use (matching resume to job description). Provides prerequisite (ACCESS_CODE) and fallback action (call get_access_info). Does not explicitly state when NOT to use, but sibling tool context implies alternative for access issues.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns information about access code, rewrite engine, configuration, and kit. Since it's a read-only info tool, no destructive or auth details are needed, but it could mention the response format.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance.

    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?

    Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the tool's purpose and output. It also references the sibling tool for when to use it, making the context complete.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    No parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Description adds value by detailing what information is returned, compensating for lack of output 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing information about the ATS Resume Writer, specifically listing access code, rewrite engine, configuration, and companion resume kit. It distinguishes from sibling rewrite_resume by focusing on informational retrieval.

    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?

    Explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this when rewrite_resume reports a missing or invalid access code.' This gives clear context for use and differentiates from the sibling tool.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ats-resume-writer-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ats-resume-writer-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mutamiri-sudo/ats-resume-writer-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server