Scaffold a new paper from a template and return its entry path, so you can write it section by section with paper_write_section.
Scaffold a new paper from a template. Returns the entry path; then write it section by section with paper_write_section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | lowercase-dashed directory name | |
| force | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| template | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return value ('Returns the entry path'), but says nothing about the destructive potential of the `force` parameter, what happens on name collision, or where templates come from — all critical for a scaffolding mutation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return contract and next step. Nothing is wasted.
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?
It covers the return value, which matters since there is no output schema, so the tool is callable for the happy path. But for a five-parameter mutation with no annotations, the silence on overwrite/force behavior and template enumeration leaves real gaps.
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 description coverage is only 20% (just `name`), and the description adds no meaning for the other four parameters. `force`, `title`, `engine` (enum typst/latex/both), and `template` are left entirely to inference, and the description does not even point at paper_templates as the source of template values.
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 ('Scaffold a new paper from a template') and names the follow-up sibling paper_write_section. However, it never distinguishes itself from paper_init or paper_templates, which an agent would plausibly consider for the same intent.
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 second sentence implies a workflow ('then write it section by section with paper_write_section'), which hints this is step one of a sequence. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over paper_init, or what to do if the paper already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.