overleaf-claude-mcp

Compile the project

overleaf_compile

Compile LaTeX projects on Overleaf's server and get a clear status report with output files, so you can verify build results directly.

Instructions

Run a server-side LaTeX compile and report status plus output files.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "overleaf_compile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft`	No
`projectId`	No
`stopOnFirstError`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does disclose that compilation is server-side and that the tool returns status plus output files, but it does not explain side effects, prerequisites, failure behavior, or timing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence and packs the essential action and output summary without wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this is too thin. It does not mention how projectId interacts with project selection, whether draft affects output files, or how the returned status relates to compile_log.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It does not explain what 'draft', 'projectId', or 'stopOnFirstError' mean, their defaults, or which are relevant to the current selected project.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Run a server-side LaTeX compile') and the result ('report status plus output files'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like overleaf_compile_log and overleaf_download_pdf.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that compile_log is for logs, download_pdf is for fetching the PDF, or whether a project must be selected first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.