MagicTeX-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.10
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: visual diff, compilation preview, checkpoint listing, comment inspection, resolution, adding, and replying. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., show_diff, list_checkpoints, resolve_comment), making the action and target clear.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is scoped appropriately for a LaTeX review workflow. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The set covers the full lifecycle of a review: preview, diff, checkpoint management, and a complete comment system (list, add, resolve, reply). No obvious gaps.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 140 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation, returns recent checkpoints auto-saved on compile, with specific fields and ordering. Lacks mention of permissions or idempotency, but adequate.
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?
Two sentences: first describes output and order, second gives usage context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description provides return field names and sorting. It explains the auto-save context and ties to sibling tools. Lacks mention of pagination or filtering beyond limit, but fairly complete for a simple list tool.
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?
The single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 it lists recent checkpoints, specifies their content (sha, timestamp, file/line-change stat), and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_diff and comment tools by focusing on checkpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides when to use: to find a sha for show_diff or cite versions during multi-step editing. Does not mention exclusions, but positive guidance is clear and helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the note is 'shown to the user on the comment card,' which is useful. However, it omits whether the action is reversible or if there are side effects (e.g., notifications). For a state-changing tool, more detail would be helpful.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and then provides the necessary parameter context. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool, the description covers the input semantics and usage workflow. It does not mention the return value (no output schema provided), but that is a minor gap given the action's simplicity. An experienced agent would likely infer a success/error response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: for 'id,' it specifies 'as returned by check_comments'; for 'note,' it explains its purpose and that it is displayed to the user. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 ('Mark a workspace comment as resolved') and the resource ('workspace comment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment and reply_to_comment by specifying this is about resolution after making an edit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'after you have made the edit it asked for' and references check_comments to obtain the id. It does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., if already resolved) or alternatives, but the workflow context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a picture (not text) and is shown inline, but it does not discuss potential limitations (e.g., empty diffs, large outputs), permissions, or side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 two sentences long, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single optional parameter, complete schema coverage, and no output schema (returns an image), the description covers the essential usage. It explains how the result is displayed ('shown inline'). It could mention what happens if the diff is empty, but the overall completeness is high for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (checkpoint) is described in the schema as 'A checkpoint commit sha', with 100% schema coverage. The description adds meaningful context: where to obtain the sha (preview History panel) and the behavior when omitted (shows current uncommitted changes), improving usability beyond the schema alone.
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 it 'Render a side-by-side git diff as an image', specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it returns a visual picture, not text, and defaults to uncommitted changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks to SEE a diff visually', providing clear guidance on when to invoke. It also explains the default behavior (current uncommitted changes) and the parameter for a specific checkpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for text diffs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that by default the comment is a 'suggestion' awaiting human acceptance, and only with accepted:true in copilot mode is it immediately actionable. It mentions the workspace and author loop. It does not cover edge cases or side effects, but the main behavioral trait is well explained.
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 three sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds necessary context. No fluff or repetition. Efficient and to the point.
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?
No output schema is provided, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a comment ID). It also doesn't clarify that the page parameter defaults to 1 (though schema says so). For a creation tool, omitting return value information is a gap. However, the description sufficiently covers invocation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the accepted parameter's effect and default behavior, which goes beyond the schema description. It also implies the role parameter implicitly with 'reviewer agent' but does not elaborate on the enum values, so not fully compensating but still adding value.
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 (post a review comment), the resource (anchored to a passage of the paper), and the agent (reviewer). It distinguishes from leaving 'one long critique' and implies this tool is for targeted comments, separating it from siblings like reply_to_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says when to use: 'leave many targeted comments rather than one long critique.' It explains the accepted parameter's context: only in fully-autonomous mode. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like reply_to_comment or resolve_comment, though the name and description imply this is for new comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It reveals key behaviors: uses local TeX or WASM, updates live preview, returns compile success/errors, engine, backend, file count, and preview URL. There is no mention of destructive actions, but that aligns with a preview tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains backend, third lists returns, fourth gives usage advice. It contains no fluff, though some sentences are slightly long. Every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (success/errors, engine, backend, file count, preview URL). It also covers the live update behavior. It does not detail error formatting or edge cases, but covers the essentials.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no significant parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it only provides general context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's action: 'Compile the current project's LaTeX to a PDF locally and update the live preview.' It identifies the specific resource (LaTeX project) and verb (compile/preview), and is well differentiated from sibling tools which are about comments and diffs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Call this after editing .tex files to see and verify the rendered result,' giving clear usage context. It does not specify when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but siblings are distinct enough to avoid confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return fields (id, page, passage, source location, instruction) and behavioral nuance (only accepted comments, not pending). With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and is transparent about scope and limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Slightly verbose due to embedded workflow steps, but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise by separating workflow from tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides sufficient context for the tool's return value and usage scenario. Lacks error handling or pagination info, but adequate for a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema.
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?
Single optional boolean parameter with schema coverage 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists accepted PDF comments as work items. Distinguishes from siblings like resolve_comment and add_comment by specifying it only returns accepted comments (not pending suggestions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to call: when user asks to 'address/check my comments' or in an agent loop watching for new comments. Also clarifies that pending suggestions don't count, and provides step-by-step post-processing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the action does not resolve the comment, which is key behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it could further describe side effects, permissions, or response format. Still, the provided note about non-resolution is valuable.
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 two sentences plus a parenthetical, all front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers invocation context. It could mention that the reply is appended to the thread, but overall it supplies enough for an agent to decide and use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the source of 'id' (from check_comments) and the role options (especially for defender). This goes beyond the schema documentation.
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 'Add a reply to a comment's thread' and provides specific use cases (ask clarifying question, explain reasoning, push back). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'resolve_comment', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use scenarios and explicitly states what this tool does not do ('This does not resolve the comment; use resolve_comment for that.'). It also tells the source of the required 'id' parameter, aiding correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MagicTeX-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Still-chowline394/MagicTeX-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Still-chowline394/MagicTeX-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MagicTeX-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Still-chowline394/MagicTeX-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Still-chowline394/MagicTeX-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Still-chowline394/MagicTeX-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server