get_resume_versionFetch a resume version's snapshot and diff against its parent to track changes and review edits.
Fetch one resume version including its snapshot and the diff vs its parent.
kind/key as on list_resume_versions: "base"+slug or "application"+id.
number is the version number from that list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing what is returned (snapshot plus parent diff), which is not inferable from the schema.
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, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what it returns, then how to source the parameters). No filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of explaining the return payload (snapshot + diff). Combined with full parameter coverage and annotation-backed safety, only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for a nonexistent version.
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 carry the burden, and it does: it defines kind as 'base' vs 'application', explains key as a slug for base or an id for application, and identifies number as the version number from list_resume_versions. It compensates well, though it omits format details such as whether number is 0-indexed or 1-indexed.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one resume version), and further specifies the payload: the snapshot and the diff vs its parent. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_resume_versions, which returns many versions rather than one with a diff.
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 anchors usage to list_resume_versions by telling the agent that kind/key/number come from that list, which is real workflow context. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or name restore_resume_version as the mutation alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.