overleaf-claude-mcp

View an image

overleaf_read_image

Access image files stored in an Overleaf project to view their content. Use this operation to retrieve and read image data directly from the project workspace.

Instructions

Fetch an image from the project so it can be viewed directly.

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>"
    },
    "name": "overleaf_read_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Fetch' and 'viewed directly' correctly signal a non-mutating, display-oriented operation, but the description does not disclose how the image is returned (binary, base64, URL), what formats are supported, or what errors/limitations apply.

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 filler. It states the action, the resource, and the purpose without redundancy.

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 2-parameter read tool, the description is close to adequate, but the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter semantics leaves the agent uncertain about the response format and exact arguments. It supports tool selection but not fully confident invocation.

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 itself must explain the meaning and usage of filePath and projectId. It only hints that filePath refers to an image and that the image comes from a project; it never names the parameters, mentions whether projectId is optional/relative to the current project, or specifies path rules or supported image types.

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 uses a specific action ('Fetch') and a clearly scoped resource ('an image from the project'), with the intended outcome 'so it can be viewed directly'. This makes the tool's purpose easy to distinguish from siblings like overleaf_read_file or overleaf_download_file.

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?

The intended use case is implied: use this when you need to view an image from the project. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare this with alternatives such as overleaf_read_file for text or overleaf_download_file for raw downloads.

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