Fetch a tailored CV by ID to review its full document: header, summary, experience bullets, and skill groups.
Fetch a tailored CV with its full document (header, summary, experience bullets, skill groups).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The CV id, from cv_tailor or cv_list (or the tailoring workspace URL /tailor/<job>?cv=<id>). Opaque — never construct or guess one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing what the payload contains (header, summary, experience bullets, skill groups). It does not mention format, rendering, or failure behavior for a missing id.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical of returned sections earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the response shape, and the readOnly annotation covers safety for a one-parameter read. Only the missing guidance relative to sibling CV tools keeps it from being complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the id, its provenance, and that it is opaque. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Fetch a tailored CV') and enumerates the returned document sections, which distinguishes it from the list-oriented cv_list. It does not explicitly name any sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.
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 word 'tailored' plus a single required id implies retrieving one already-generated CV, but the description never says when to use this instead of cv_list, cv_context, or cv_edit. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.