overleaf-claude-mcp

Delete an entry

overleaf_delete

Delete a specified file or folder from an Overleaf project. Requires explicit confirmation to proceed with the deletion.

Instructions

Delete a file or folder from the project. Requires confirm to be true.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "overleaf_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes
`filePath`	Yes
`projectId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key requirement (confirm must be true) and the destructive nature of the operation, but lacks details on permanence, permissions, or side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The most critical behavioral note (requires confirm) is front-loaded and the description is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete operation, the description covers the essence, but the lack of parameter documentation and usage context is a gap. Given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, this is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meanings. While 'file or folder' hints at filePath and 'confirm' is mentioned, projectId is entirely unaddressed and no value formats or constraints are given.

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 deletes a file or folder from the project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rename, move, or read, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rename or move). No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the confirm requirement, leaving the agent to infer when deletion is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.