Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claucloverleaf

claucloverleaf

by SolthaX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

overleaf_list_projects

Read-only

Lists the Overleaf projects an account can access, returning each project's ID, name, access level, and last update; optionally includes archived projects.

Instructions

List the Overleaf projects this account can access (id, name, access, last update).

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_list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_archivedNoAlso list archived projects.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe, externally-scoped read, so the description adds little behavioral context. The parenthetical field list is mildly useful but largely duplicates the output schema that already exists; nothing is said about pagination, result size, or ordering.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema covering return values, annotations covering safety, and a trivial single-parameter schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that it never positions this as the entry-point discovery tool for the rest of the Overleaf toolset.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter include_archived is fully described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not mention the archived-projects behavior at all, leaving the schema to carry it.

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 ("List the Overleaf projects") and adds a scoping constraint ("this account can access"). It is unmistakable against the file-level siblings like overleaf_list_files and overleaf_read_file, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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: an agent would infer this is the discovery step for obtaining project ids before calling overleaf_list_files or the write tools, but nothing states that. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative mentioned.

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