Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Maestro Career Studio

Maestro Career Studio

Official
by seinun-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Approve Career Points

kb_approve_points
Idempotent

Batch-approve Career KB points to include them in composed resumes and career exports; use this MCP path to mark listed points approved.

Instructions

Batch-approve Career KB points. Approved points are the only ones that appear on composed resumes and the career export; this is the single approval path available over MCP, and kb_retire_points retires points. The approval written is the user's decision about the listed points; the server does not check that the user reviewed them (a convention, not enforcement).

1-500 ids; repeats collapse to one result row. Per-id results are honest: unknown ids
return ok=false detail="not found" and the rest still proceed; a failed id fails the
same way until corrected (kb_list_points returns the current ids).

Response is {results: [{id, ok, state, detail}], next}. next is a hint
(null when suppressed or unavailable).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
point_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / state
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "approved",
-  "enum": [
-    "approved",
-    "retired"
-  ],
-  "title": "State",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive): it discloses that approval is a convention not server-enforced, that repeats collapse to one row, that partial failures are per-id with the rest proceeding, and that failed ids keep failing until corrected. It also explains the response envelope and the meaning of 'next'.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then constraints, then response shape — logical ordering with no filler sentences. Slightly dense and the response-shape paragraph is verbose, but every segment carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return envelope ({results:[{id, ok, state, detail}], next}) and the semantics of 'next', plus error-path behavior. For a one-parameter batch mutation tool this leaves nothing material missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: it gives the 1-500 range for point_ids, the deduplication behavior, and what happens with unknown ids ('ok=false detail="not found"'). It does not say where ids come from in the schema itself, though it points at kb_list_points as the source, which largely compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Batch-approve Career KB points') and immediately explains the downstream effect: approved points are the only ones appearing on composed resumes and the career export. It also explicitly contrasts with kb_retire_points, so an agent can separate the two KB mutation tools without opening schemas.

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?

Says this is 'the single approval path available over MCP' and names kb_retire_points as the alternative for retirement, plus points to kb_list_points as the way to obtain current ids. Clear usage context, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites (e.g. that points must exist first, or what to do if the user has not reviewed them beyond the convention note).

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