Manulyx: LaTeX editor

Create a new project

create_project

Creates a new project owned by you: a paper in a journal's own template when a journal is named, otherwise a plain article. Returns its id, main file and address. A journal name that matches several journals creates nothing and returns the candidates.

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": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No	The paper's title. Optional; it can be changed later.
`journal`	No	The journal or conference it is for, by full name or abbreviation ("IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications", "TWC"). Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description goes further by stating the returned fields (id, main file, address) and, critically, a failure mode: an ambiguous journal name creates nothing and returns candidates instead. That 'no-op plus candidates' behavior is exactly what an agent needs to avoid assuming side effects occurred.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the creation semantics, followed immediately by the return values and the edge case. No filler, no restatement of the title or annotations.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers output shape and the main edge case, which is strong. It is slightly thin on what 'address' resolves to and on ownership/permission implications of 'owned by you', leaving minor gaps for an agent reasoning about follow-up calls.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond it: it documents the consequence of a partial/ambiguous journal match and reiterates the template selection tied to that parameter. Title semantics are left entirely to the schema, which already marks it optional and mutable.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Creates a new project') plus a precise statement of what kind of project is created (journal-templated paper vs. plain article) depending on the journal argument. An agent can tell exactly what this produces without consulting the schema.

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 makes the selection condition between the two creation modes explicit (journal named → journal template, otherwise plain article), and the ambiguity case is described. It does not name any alternative tool or state exclusions, but the create-vs-other-verbs distinction is self-evident against siblings like search_project or list_projects.

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

All Manulyx: LaTeX editor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?