mcp-latex

Compile LaTeX

compile

Compile a .tex file using latexmk or pdflatex, returning parsed errors. If no TeX engine is installed, provides guidance on how to proceed.

Instructions

Compiles a .tex file with latexmk/pdflatex if a TeX engine is installed, and returns parsed errors. Returns available:false with guidance if no engine is found.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "compile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the .tex file to compile
`engine`	No	Preferred engine (default latexmk)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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.

Deploy Server