Retrieve the stored base resume to reuse as context for match analysis, tailored resumes, cover letters, and other career documents.
Retrieve the stored base resume.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_resume"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it: it does not say whether the call is read-only (inferable, but unstated in structured form), what the returned resume contains, or what happens if no base resume has been saved yet. For a zero-argument getter whose failure mode is the main risk, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single six-word sentence with the resource stated up front and no filler. There is nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no nesting), but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say at least what comes back and what state is required before calling. It is adequate as a label but thin as an operating instruction.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter meaning the description could add beyond the schema; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing here contradicts or omits parameter behavior.
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 pairs a specific verb ("Retrieve") with a specific resource ("the stored base resume"), and the word "base" plus the sibling name save_resume makes its role reasonably distinguishable. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with list_/query_ or save_ siblings, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as query_stories, list_applications, or get_active_application, nor any stated prerequisite such as a resume first existing. Usage is only implicit in the verb "Retrieve".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.