Skip to main content
Glama
claucloverleaf

claucloverleaf

by SolthaX

overleaf_delete

Destructive

Delete documents, files, or folders—including their contents—from an Overleaf project by specifying the project and path.

Instructions

Delete a document, file or folder (folders are deleted with their content).

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>"
    },
    "name": "overleaf_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath in the project, e.g. 'main.tex' or 'chapters/intro.tex'.
projectYesProject id, Overleaf project URL, or exact project name.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description does add real value beyond them by disclosing the recursive semantics ('folders are deleted with their content'), but it omits irreversibility, any confirmation step, and failure behavior for missing paths.

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 sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded in a parenthetical; no filler, no redundancy with the name.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema, the essential recursion detail is present and safety hints come from annotations. What is missing is whether the operation is recoverable and any precondition on the path existing, which an agent calling a delete tool would want to know.

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%, with both 'project' and 'path' documented including example path formats, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a document, file or folder') with the scope qualifier that folders go recursively. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like overleaf_rename or overleaf_move.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of other mutation tools, no mention that deletion is irreversible or requires confirmation, and no prerequisites (permissions, project state). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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