get_pdfCompile an Overleaf project and save the resulting PDF to the specified output path on disk.
Compile the project and write the resulting PDF to outputPath on disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| outputPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it performs a compile and writes to disk, making the side effect concrete. It does not discuss overwrite behavior, but annotations lower the burden and there is no contradiction.
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?
One sentence with no filler; action and destination are stated directly in order. Every word contributes to the call semantics.
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 tool is simple with two string parameters, but there is no output schema and sparse annotations. The description explains what and where, yet omits whether outputPath is a file or directory, whether existing files are overwritten, and what the call returns. Adequate for a basic call but incomplete for edge cases.
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 carry parameter meaning. It does map both parameters in context: the project is compiled and the output is written to outputPath, but it does not explain expected formats, absolute paths, or extension requirements.
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 specific compound action: compile the project and write the PDF to outputPath. This distinguishes it from a plain compile_project or export tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus compile_project, export_project, or write_file. With several related siblings present, an agent cannot tell whether to call this directly or compose other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.