Skip to main content
Glama
abhi-ramtel

mcp-overleaf-server

by abhi-ramtel

Render & compile tailored document

render_and_compile

Injects tailored content from a master CV into LaTeX templates, compiles résumé and cover letter PDFs, and returns provenance warnings and ATS coverage report.

Instructions

Inject TailoredContent into the LaTeX template, verify every bullet traces to the master CV (anti-fabrication), compile to PDF, and save as _.pdf in the output dir. ALWAYS pass coverLetter too unless the user opted out — it produces the matching one-page letter in the same call. The application is auto-logged to the tracker. Returns provenance warnings and, if jobDescription is given, an ATS coverage report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobUrlNoJob posting URL — recorded in the tracker
companyNo
compileNoSet false to only write .tex without compiling
contentYesThe tailored content JSON produced from the brief
projectNoOverleaf project (needed only if templateFile is repo-relative)
positionNo
templateNo
autoTrackNoAuto-log to the tracker (default true when company+position are given)
jdSummaryNoShort JD summary for the tracker row (auto-derived if omitted)
headerLineNoCustom line under the name, e.g. 'Buffalo, NY | Open to relocation'
outputNameNoOverride the output filename base
coverLetterNoCover letter content — pass this to generate the résumé and letter together (recommended)
templateFileNoUse a specific template .tex instead (absolute, or relative to the synced Overleaf repo)
jobDescriptionNoPass the JD to get an ATS coverage report
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: content injection, anti-fabrication verification, PDF compilation, file naming, auto-logging, and return of provenance warnings and ATS coverage report when applicable. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting files, but the action is clear enough for safe invocation.

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 five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, cover letter guidance, auto-logging note, and return description. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted words. Ideal balance of completeness and brevity.

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 complexity (14 parameters, nested content object, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, key behavioral nuances, and return values. It mentions provenance warnings and ATS coverage report, which are critical for understanding tool output. It could be slightly more complete by noting prerequisites (e.g., requires a tailored content from previous step), but overall it is sufficiently informative.

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?

With 79% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds behavioral context for parameters like coverLetter (recommended, generates matching letter) and jobDescription (triggers ATS report), which enhances understanding beyond the schema. The description does not repeat what the schema already covers, adding value in parameter semantics.

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 specifies the tool's function: inject TailoredContent into LaTeX, verify bullet traceability, compile to PDF, and save with a specific naming convention. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning companion cover letter generation, which is a key differentiator from sibling tools like render_cover_letter.

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 instructs to 'ALWAYS pass `coverLetter` too unless the user opted out', providing strong guidance on when to use the cover letter feature. It also states the application is auto-logged, but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools like batch_render for when to use this single-render tool versus batch alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/abhi-ramtel/mcp-overleaf-server'

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