Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claucloverleaf

claucloverleaf

by SolthaX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

overleaf_review

Read-only

List a document's comments with replies and pending tracked changes to review feedback and suggested edits in an Overleaf project.

Instructions

List a document's comments (with replies) and pending tracked changes.

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_review"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses that replies are included with comments and that only pending (not resolved) tracked changes are returned, which shapes what the agent should expect. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or limits, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 most important scope details (replies included, pending changes) appear immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and both parameters are fully described. For a simple two-parameter read tool the description is nearly complete; the only minor gap is that it does not indicate whether output is filtered or paginated for large review threads.

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%, so both parameters (project id/URL/name and file path with examples) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema and only implies document scoping. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a clearly bounded resource: a single document's comments including replies, plus pending tracked changes. It is easy to distinguish from the write-side sibling overleaf_add_comment, though it does not name any sibling explicitly. Scope ('a document's') is clear because both required params (project, path) pin it to one 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the review/feedback-reading tool. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., overleaf_read_file for the raw text). It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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