overleaf-claude-mcp

Word count

overleaf_word_count

Retrieve the compiled word count for an Overleaf project. Gives an accurate total to monitor document length.

Instructions

Return the compiled word count for the project.

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": "overleaf_word_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Return the compiled word count') without elaborating on side effects, dependencies (like prior compilation), or any limitations, offering minimal insight beyond the obvious.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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 core purpose, though the brevity results in missing details, which is acceptable for conciseness but penalized elsewhere.

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?

This simple tool lacks an output schema and has only one undocumented parameter. The description fails to explain what 'compiled word count' means (e.g., does it require compilation? what files are included?), and it does not describe the output format. Given the minimal schema and absence of annotations, the description is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has zero description coverage for the projectId parameter, and the tool description does not explain it either. The phrase 'for the project' vaguely alludes to it, but no meaning or usage context is added for the parameter, leaving the agent to guess its format or optionality.

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 returns the compiled word count for the project. It uses a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('compiled word count'), which distinguishes it from siblings like overleaf_list_projects or overleaf_read_file.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether compilation is required) or any exclusion conditions, leaving usage entirely implied.

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