Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claucloverleaf

claucloverleaf

by SolthaX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

overleaf_add_comment

Attach a review comment to specific text in an Overleaf LaTeX file so collaborators can discuss feedback on the selected passage.

Instructions

Attach a review comment to a span of text, like selecting it and commenting in Overleaf.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "anchor_text": "<anchor_text>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "overleaf_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath in the project, e.g. 'main.tex' or 'chapters/intro.tex'.
messageYesComment content.
projectYesProject id, Overleaf project URL, or exact project name.
occurrenceNoWhich match of anchor_text (1 = first).
anchor_textYesExact text the comment is attached to.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is consistent with it (adding a comment is a non-destructive mutation). The description adds little beyond the analogy: it does not say what happens when anchor_text matches zero or multiple places, whether the file content is altered, or whether permissions/review access are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the analogy does real work in conveying the interaction model rather than padding the text.

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?

An output schema and full parameter descriptions carry much of the burden, so the description needn't explain return values. However, for a tool whose main failure mode is an anchor that cannot be resolved unambiguously, the description leaves that behavior entirely unaddressed, making it only adequately complete for a 5-parameter mutation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented, and the description only loosely motivates anchor_text via 'a span of text'. It says nothing about the occurrence parameter, which is the non-obvious disambiguator when the anchor text appears more than once; that detail lives entirely in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('a review comment') and pins down the scope to 'a span of text', with an Overleaf-native analogy that makes the effect unmistakable. It does not explicitly name how it differs from the sibling overleaf_review tool, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you call this when you want to leave inline review feedback rather than edit text. There is no explicit 'use this instead of overleaf_write_file/overleaf_review' guidance and no statement of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools