Builds an Overleaf project with the remote LaTeX compiler, returning the PDF URL and log messages; optionally specify a root .tex file.
Compile an Overleaf project using the remote LaTeX compiler. Returns the PDF URL and any log messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The Overleaf project ID | |
| resource_path | No | Path of a .tex file in the project to compile as the root document. E.g. "paper.tex", "folder/test.tex" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful return information ('PDF URL and any log messages'), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention latency, failure behavior on LaTeX errors, or whether the remote compile mutates server state.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract. No filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond what is necessary.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and return shape. But the presence of a very similar sibling (compile_with_outputs) and the absence of any guidance on error handling or preconditions leaves real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how project_id or resource_path affect compilation (e.g. what happens when resource_path is omitted). Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Compile an Overleaf project using the remote LaTeX compiler'), which is clearly actionable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'compile_with_outputs', leaving the agent to guess which compile variant to pick.
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 statement of when to use this versus 'compile_with_outputs', which appears to be a near-duplicate sibling. There are also no prerequisites mentioned (e.g. whether the project must be pulled/synced first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed