resume_to_markdownConvert stored resume profiles to Markdown text ready for job forms or ATS boxes, with optional page-limit trimming and no disk writes.
Return the stored profile as markdown text inline, ready to paste into a form or an ATS box. Same page-budget trimming as resume_create for max_pages. Nothing is written to disk. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| target_role | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the all-false annotations: 'Nothing is written to disk' clarifies side effects, and 'Same page-budget trimming as resume_create for max_pages' explains how max_pages influences output. The 'Free' note also adds a practical constraint. No annotation contradiction is present; readOnlyHint=false is an absence of a hint rather than an explicit claim that the tool mutates state.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the paste use case, max_pages behavior, and side-effect/cost guarantees. Every sentence contributes information without repetition or filler.
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's core output and side-effect behavior are well covered, and the return format is stated inline. However, with no output schema and no descriptions for variant and target_role, the definition is incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke it with non-default optional parameters.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain all three parameters. It only indirectly explains max_pages via 'Same page-budget trimming as resume_create for max_pages,' and leaves variant and target_role completely unexplained. An agent cannot determine what values to pass or what these parameters do.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the stored profile as markdown text inline.' It clearly states the output format (markdown), which differentiates it from sibling resume_to_html, and identifies the paste-ready use case. There is no ambiguity about what the tool produces.
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 description gives a clear context for use ('ready to paste into a form or an ATS box') and references resume_create for max_pages trimming behavior. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with resume_to_html, resume_read, or profile_get, so the when-not-to-use guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.