overleaf-claude-mcp

Search the project

overleaf_grep

Search every text file in an Overleaf project using regex patterns to find matching content.

Instructions

Regex search across every text file in the project.

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": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "overleaf_grep"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`flags`	No
`pattern`	Yes
`projectId`	No
`maxMatches`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (regex search on text files) but does not mention read-only nature, case sensitivity, match limits, or performance implications. It adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with 4 parameters.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and earns its place efficiently, achieving maximum conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not disclose return format, valid flag values, or the role of projectId relative to the selected project. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions, especially given the lack of annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains none of the parameters—pattern, flags, projectId, maxMatches—beyond the implicit 'regex' in the verb. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify flag syntax, project scope, or match limiting behavior, leaving the agent to guess.

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 regex search across every text file in the project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like overleaf_read_file (single file access) and overleaf_word_count (counting), 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'across every text file in the project' provides context that this is a project-wide search tool, implying use when scanning multiple files. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from file-specific operations.

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