Compile a LaTeX project using pdfLaTeX or LatexMk, with shell escape disabled and diagnostic limits enforced for safe, focused builds.
Build a project with pdfLaTeX/LatexMk, no shell escape, and bounded diagnostics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| main_tex | No | main.tex | |
| clean_first | No | ||
| project_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose useful operational constraints: no shell escape and bounded diagnostics. However, it does not mention that clean_first may delete or clean build artifacts, nor does it explain the side effects of a build beyond implying compilation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the tool's action, the engines used, and two important constraints are all communicated efficiently.
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?
Given no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important gaps around parameter behavior, side effects of clean_first, and when this tool should be selected over siblings. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the invocation context is not fully specified.
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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-specific meaning. The property names main_tex, project_dir, and clean_first are somewhat self-explanatory, but clean_first's behavior is not described at all, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Build a project with pdfLaTeX/LatexMk.' It also adds distinguishing constraints such as 'no shell escape' and 'bounded diagnostics,' which make the tool clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools latex_environment, latex_find_file, and latex_clean.
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?
The description makes clear that this tool is for compiling/building a LaTeX project, and the 'no shell escape' constraint establishes a boundary for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not guidance beyond that constraint, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.