mcp-latex

Parse LaTeX log

parse_log

Parse LaTeX .log files to extract errors, warnings, undefined references, and over/underfull box counts into structured data.

Instructions

Parses a LaTeX .log file into structured errors, warnings, undefined references/citations, and over/underfull box counts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "parse_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Path to a .log file (used if logContent is omitted)
`logContent`	No	Contents of a .log file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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.

Deploy Server