create_projectCreate a new, empty Overleaf project by providing a name and optional template, returning the project ID for immediate use in document management and compilation workflows.
Create a new, empty Overleaf project and return its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| template | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the project is empty and that an id is returned, which is useful, but it does not explain the effect of the template parameter, and the claim 'empty' is potentially misleading if a template populates content.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and return value efficiently, earning its place.
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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin to support correct invocation, especially for the optional template parameter. It covers only the no-template case and gives no hint about template behavior, naming constraints, or how the returned id is shaped.
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%, so the description must compensate for the bare name and template properties. It does not mention either parameter, leaving template especially ambiguous: template name, template id, or template content are all unexplained. No parameter-level meaning is added beyond what the schema already shows.
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 states a clear verb+resource: creating an Overleaf project and returning its id. The phrase 'new, empty' helps set expectations and distinguishes this from operations like rename, delete, or compile. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential import or template-based creation paths, and 'empty' may be inaccurate when the optional template parameter is used.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name and description that this is for creating a project, but no contextual or comparative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.