Skip to main content
Glama
marcelogdomingues

mcp-latex

by marcelogdomingues
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The three tools are largely distinct: check_document performs static analysis, parse_log consumes a log file, and compile invokes an external engine. There is minor overlap in that both check_document and parse_log can report undefined references/citations, but the input source (source file vs. log file) clarifies the intended use.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Two tools use the verb_noun pattern (check_document, parse_log), while compile uses a bare verb. This is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent naming style, but the intent is still clear.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for LaTeX document validation and compilation. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without redundancy or bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The toolset covers the core workflow of checking source, compiling, and parsing logs. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for cleaning auxiliary files or managing bibliographies, but these are not essential for the server's stated purpose.

  • Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only parsing operation, which is safe and non-destructive. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid input, missing files, or other edge cases, limiting transparency.

    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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and expected outcomes.

    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?

    The tool is simple: two parameters, no output schema. The description covers the input source and the high-level result categories. It avoids detailing the exact output structure, which is acceptable for a parser, but it could mention error handling or prerequisites for full completeness.

    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 coverage is 100%—both parameters (path and logContent) have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Parses a LaTeX .log file') and the specific outputs (errors, warnings, undefined references/citations, over/underfull box counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compile (which builds documents) and check_document (which likely checks structure).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, but the purpose implies this should be used when you have a .log file and need structured diagnostics. The guidance is implied, not explicit, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

    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 fallback behavior (available:false) and error parsing, but omits potential file system side effects of compilation and any permission requirements.

    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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. The description is concise yet informative.

    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 and no annotations, the description covers core behavior and the no-engine fallback. The return value beyond 'parsed errors' is somewhat vague, but adequate for a straightforward compile 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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it merely references the engines already enumerated.

    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 states the tool compiles .tex files with latexmk/pdflatex and returns parsed errors. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools check_document and parse_log, which cover different stages.

    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 implies use for compiling TeX files and notes the conditional behavior based on engine availability, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear.

    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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'static analysis', signaling no side effects or compilation, and lists what it finds. It does not detail the exact output format or whether any files are written, but 'static analysis' strongly implies read-only behavior, which is adequately transparent.

    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 concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('static analysis of LaTeX source'), then efficiently enumerates specific findings and a key practical detail (no TeX install required). Every word 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?

    The description covers purpose, capabilities, and operating constraints for a simple 2-parameter tool. It omits an explicit return format, but no output schema exists, and the listed outputs ('lists labels, references and citations') give adequate context for an agent to understand what to expect.

    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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'path' and 'source'. The tool description adds no extra details about parameter semantics or relationships beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 the tool performs static analysis of LaTeX source, listing specific checks (undefined references, duplicate/unused labels, unbalanced environments) and outputs (labels, references, citations). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'parse_log' and 'compile' by focusing on source analysis rather than log parsing or compilation.

    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 implies when to use the tool (for checking LaTeX source without compiling) and adds a useful constraint ('works without a TeX install'). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, missing a stronger usage guideline.

    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

mcp-latex MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-latex MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/marcelogdomingues/mcp-latex'

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