Skip to main content
Glama
minhasaatish

Developer Portfolio MCP Server

by minhasaatish
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Developer Portfolio MCP Server

An MCP server that lets recruiters and AI assistants explore your profile, skills, and projects through natural language.

Python MCP License: MIT

What is this?

This project is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server — a standardized bridge between AI assistants (Cursor, Claude Desktop, etc.) and your developer portfolio data.

Instead of sending recruiters a static PDF resume, you give them (or their AI tools) a live MCP server they can query interactively:

  • "What Python projects has this developer built?"

  • "How well does their stack match this job description?"

  • "Generate an interview prep brief for a Senior Engineer role."

Why recruiters care: It demonstrates you understand modern AI tooling, can build production integrations, and think about developer experience.

Related MCP server: resume-mcp

Quick Start

1. Clone and install

git clone https://github.com/YOUR_USERNAME/developer-portfolio-mcp.git
cd developer-portfolio-mcp
uv sync --extra dev

2. Customize your data

Edit these JSON files with your real information:

File

What to update

src/developer_portfolio_mcp/data/profile.json

Name, email, GitHub, LinkedIn, summary

src/developer_portfolio_mcp/data/projects.json

Your real projects

src/developer_portfolio_mcp/data/skills.json

Your actual skills

3. Run the server

uv run developer-portfolio-mcp

4. Connect to Cursor

Copy the example config and update the path:

cp .cursor/mcp.json.example .cursor/mcp.json
# Edit the absolute path in mcp.json to your project directory

Then in Cursor: Settings → MCP — your server should appear. Try asking:

"Use the developer-portfolio MCP to show me this candidate's top projects."

What's Inside

Tools (6) — Actions the AI can perform

Tool

Description

get_developer_profile

Core profile and availability

list_projects

Portfolio projects (filterable by status)

get_project_details

Deep dive on one project

search_skills

Search skills by keyword/category

get_contact_info

Contact links and scheduling info

compare_stack

Match job requirements vs. your skills

Resources (3) — Read-only data endpoints

URI

Content

profile://resume

Full resume in Markdown

profile://skills/{category}

Skills by category

projects://list

All projects as JSON

Prompts (3) — Reusable AI templates

Prompt

Use case

interview_prep

Generate role-specific interview prep

recruiter_brief

One-page candidate summary

project_pitch

Pitch a project to a hiring manager

Project Structure

developer-portfolio-mcp/
├── src/developer_portfolio_mcp/
│   ├── server.py          # MCP server (tools, resources, prompts)
│   ├── loaders.py         # Data loading utilities
│   └── data/              # Your portfolio JSON (customize these!)
│       ├── profile.json
│       ├── projects.json
│       └── skills.json
├── tests/                 # Unit tests
├── docs/
│   └── LEARNING_GUIDE.md  # MCP basics → advanced (start here to learn!)
├── .cursor/mcp.json.example
├── pyproject.toml
└── README.md

Run Tests

uv run pytest -v

Learning MCP

New to MCP? Read docs/LEARNING_GUIDE.md — a structured path from basics to advanced concepts, using this project as your hands-on lab.

Topics covered:

  • What MCP is and why it matters

  • Tools vs Resources vs Prompts

  • Transports (stdio, HTTP)

  • Building your own tools

  • Deploying for recruiters

Push to GitHub

# After customizing your data:
git add .
git commit -m "Add developer portfolio MCP server"
git remote add origin https://github.com/YOUR_USERNAME/developer-portfolio-mcp.git
git push -u origin main

Add this to your resume/LinkedIn:

Built an MCP server exposing developer portfolio data to AI assistants — github.com/YOUR_USERNAME/developer-portfolio-mcp

Tech Stack

License

MIT — use freely, customize for your portfolio, and share with recruiters.

Available Tools

6 tools
compare_stackB

Compare a job's required tech stack against the developer's skills.

Args: required_stack: List of technologies from a job description, e.g. ['Python', 'React', 'Docker'].

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
required_stackYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic purpose. It does not disclose how the comparison works, what happens with mismatches, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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?

The description is two sentences, no unnecessary words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need elaboration. However, the description lacks edge cases or context on the output format; it is adequate but minimal.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds an example and clarifies the parameter as 'list of technologies from a job description,' which provides some meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares a job's required tech stack against the developer's skills, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_developer_profile or search_skills.

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?

The description provides an example but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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

get_contact_infoA

Get contact links and availability for scheduling interviews.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only states 'get' which implies read-only but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like privacy, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema (not provided but present). Description covers the basic functionality adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has zero parameters; baseline score of 4 for no params. Description does not add param info but none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action (Get), resource (contact info), and purpose (for scheduling interviews). Distinguishes from siblings like get_developer_profile or get_project_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage for scheduling interviews but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

get_developer_profileA

Get the developer's core profile: name, title, contact, summary, and availability.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It lists return fields but omits aspects like permission requirements, error handling, or caching. For a read-only tool, this is acceptable but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No redundancy or filler, earning its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes key fields without detailing return structure. It is sufficient for a simple tool with no parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, enhancing understanding beyond the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a developer's core profile with specific fields (name, title, contact, summary, availability). The verb 'Get' and the resource 'developer profile' are unambiguous, and the listed fields differentiate it from siblings like get_contact_info.

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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use (when needing core profile data). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling names provide context. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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

get_project_detailsB

Get detailed information about a specific project.

Args: project_id: Project slug, e.g. 'developer-portfolio-mcp'.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not confirm idempotency, safety, or mention any authentication or rate limits.

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?

Description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool is simple (1 param, output schema exists), the description is minimal but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. It would not fully equip an agent to decide when to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds a helpful example ('e.g. 'developer-portfolio-mcp'') and clarifies that project_id is a slug. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid slug or how to obtain it, which limits practical guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'specific project'. Sibling tools like list_projects and compare_stack serve different purposes, so this tool's unique role is evident.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_projects for listing all projects) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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

list_projectsA

List all projects in the developer's portfolio.

Args: status: Optional filter — 'Active', 'Completed', or None for all.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses allowed filter values but does not mention read-only nature, sorting, or pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a clear one-sentence purpose and an args section. No waste, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given low schema coverage and a single parameter, the description adequately explains the parameter. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The tool is simple and covered well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds explicit allowed values for the status parameter ('Active', 'Completed', or None), which compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all projects in the developer's portfolio, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings as no other tool lists projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides parameter guidance but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

search_skillsA

Search skills by keyword and optional category.

Args: query: Skill name or keyword to search for (case-insensitive). category: Skill category to search in, or 'all' for every category.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
categoryNoall

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity for query parameter and default category. However, it omits details about pagination, sorting, rate limits, or error behavior. Adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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-sentence purpose statement followed by clear, concise parameter descriptions. Front-loaded with main action. No redundant information.

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?

Covers input parameters well. Output schema exists (though not shown) so return format is likely covered. Lacks mention of result ordering, limits, or pagination, but sufficient for a straightforward search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles and types). Description adds meaning: 'Skill name or keyword to search for (case-insensitive)' for query, and 'Skill category to search in, or 'all' for every category' for category. Adds value beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Search skills by keyword and optional category', defining the action (search), resource (skills), and parameters. Distinct from sibling tools like compare_stack, get_contact_info, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage (searching skills) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 6 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedcompare_stack
    • First observedget_contact_info
    • First observedget_developer_profile
    • First observedget_project_details
    • First observedlist_projects
    • First observedsearch_skills
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: profile, contact, projects (list and detail), skills search, and stack comparison. No overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a developer portfolio, covering all essential areas without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers profile, contact, projects, skills, and stack comparison. Missing a direct list_all_skills tool, but search_skills covers it with a broad query. Minor gap, but overall adequate for a read-only portfolio.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/minhasaatish/developer-portfolio-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server