Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claucloverleaf

claucloverleaf

by SolthaX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

overleaf_create_project

Create a blank Overleaf project with a chosen name to start writing a LaTeX document and collaborating with others.

Instructions

Create a new blank Overleaf project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the new, empty project.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the resulting project is empty/blank; it says nothing about authentication, where the project lands in the user's account, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented. However, for a create operation with openWorldHint=true, the description omits practical context such as required auth, placement of the new project, and any prerequisite state.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required "name" parameter, so the schema carries the burden and baseline is 3. The description's word "blank" loosely reinforces that name identifies an empty project but adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a new blank ... project") and the adjective "blank" signals no template is copied, which distinguishes it from content-modifying siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as overleaf_list_projects, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., creating a folder or uploading an existing file instead). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools