Skip to main content
Glama

save_resume

Stores your base resume as raw text or from a local PDF, TXT, or Markdown file, replacing any previously saved version.

Instructions

Store the user's base resume, either as raw text or by reading a local file. Overwrites any previously stored resume. Provide exactly one of resume_text or resume_path.

Tool call template

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": "save_resume"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resume_pathNoAbsolute path to a .pdf, .txt, or .md resume file to read instead of passing raw text
resume_textNoThe full resume content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does disclose the key risk: 'Overwrites any previously stored resume.' That is the most important behavioral fact for a write tool here. It stops short of describing failure modes for unreadable/invalid paths or whether the overwrite is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, then the destructive side effect, then the input constraint. Front-loaded with the action, zero filler, and the constraint appears where an agent will read it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, and input exclusivity adequately. Minor gaps remain on what happens when the path is unreadable or what the tool returns on success.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description does add the mutual-exclusivity constraint not encoded in the schema (no parameters are required), which is a modest but real addition beyond structured data.

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?

Uses a specific verb-plus-resource ('Store the user's base resume') and a clear scope ('base' resume), which separates it from get_resume in the sibling list. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the read/write split is obvious from the names.

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?

Explains the two input modes ('either as raw text or by reading a local file') and adds an exclusivity rule ('Provide exactly one of resume_text or resume_path'). No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance, but for a single-purpose save operation the use context is unambiguous.

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