compile_projectCompile a LaTeX project on Overleaf and retrieve structured diagnostics with file, line, level, and message details for targeted error fixing.
Compile the project on Overleaf and return structured LaTeX diagnostics (file, line, level, message). Compiles typically take 10-60 seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | ||
| rootDoc | No | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint values; the description adds useful context beyond them by noting the typical 10-60 second compile time and the structured format of the returned diagnostics. This helps set expectations for a slow, non-read-only operation.
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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the timing note earning its place. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.
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 description is adequate for a simple compile action and gives both output structure and timing, but it does not cover the meaning of engine and rootDoc, and it could route users to the right sibling tools for logs or PDFs. Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this is a clear but incomplete definition.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the engine or rootDoc parameters. Only projectId is reasonably inferable from 'the project'; engine and rootDoc remain underspecified, placing a real burden on the agent.
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 clearly states a specific action and resource: it compiles an Overleaf project and returns structured LaTeX diagnostics. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_compile_log, which retrieves an existing log, and get_pdf, which fetches the compiled output.
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 implies the tool is used when you need to compile a project and get diagnostics, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_compile_log, get_pdf, or export_project. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.