Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
interview-prep-mcp

interview-prep-mcp

by shenmali
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

parse_cv_tool

Parse a CV from PDF or markdown file paths. The first CV parsed becomes active automatically for interview preparation.

Instructions

Parse a CV from a PDF or markdown file path. First CV becomes active automatically.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "parse_cv_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic activation behavior, but omits other important details like whether parsing overwrites existing profiles, error handling, or required permissions. The description adds some value beyond the schema, but significant gaps remain.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action. Every part is relevant and earned its place.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the primary action and side effect. But it lacks details on multi-file behavior, error conditions, and return value semantics. It is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It specifies that the file_path should be a 'PDF or markdown file path', adding format constraints. However, it does not clarify path type (absolute/relative) or any validation rules.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (Parse), resource (CV), and input format (PDF or markdown file path). It also notes a key behavior (first CV becomes active automatically). However, it could better distinguish from sibling tools like set_active_cv_tool or list_cv_profiles_tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or alternative tools. The automatic activation hint is useful but insufficient for decision-making.

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