create_projectCreates a new Overleaf project from a blank main.tex or an example template, so you can start writing LaTeX or use a predefined structure.
Creates a new Overleaf project, either blank (with an empty main.tex) or from Overleaf's example template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| template | No | Default blank |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true, so safety/behavior is largely on the description. It usefully discloses what content the new project starts with (empty main.tex or example template), but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the new project becomes active/selected, or side effects on existing 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action leads and the two modes follow immediately.
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 should ideally indicate what comes back (project id/URL) so an agent can chain into write_file or compile. It also omits auth prerequisites, leaving meaningful gaps for a creation tool.
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 50%: 'template' is documented (though tersely as 'Default blank') while 'name' is undocumented beyond min/max length. The description clarifies the meaning of the two template values, partially compensating, but leaves name constraints (uniqueness, 150-char limit) unexplained.
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 (Creates) and resource (Overleaf project), and distinguishes the two creation modes (blank with empty main.tex vs. example template). This separates it cleanly from siblings like list_projects or upload_file.
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 explains the two output variants but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be signed in), and no routing to alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding when create_project is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.