Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claucloverleaf

claucloverleaf

by SolthaX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

overleaf_upload_file

Destructive

Upload local LaTeX-related files into an Overleaf project, replacing any same-named file. Use it to add figures, .bib, or .sty files to a project folder.

Instructions

Upload a local file (figure, .bib, .sty…) into the project; a same-named file is replaced.

Only files under the working directory or CLAUCLOVERLEAF_FILE_DIRS, outside hidden
folders, with a LaTeX-related extension, are accepted.

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>",
      "local_path": "<local_path>"
    },
    "name": "overleaf_upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName in the project (default: local name).
folderNoDestination folder in the project ('' = root).
projectYesProject id, Overleaf project URL, or exact project name.
local_pathYesAbsolute path of the local file to upload.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 partly covered; the description still adds the crucial detail that a same-named file is silently replaced, which is exactly the destruction an agent needs to anticipate. It further discloses the allowed-path and extension guardrails, though it says nothing about permissions or error behavior when a path is rejected.

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?

Two sentences, front-loading the action and replacement semantics before the acceptance constraints; nothing is padded. The comma-spliced constraint sentence is a little dense, but every clause carries a rule the agent needs.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the main behavioral risks: overwrite-on-name-collision and the path/extension whitelist. It stops short of saying how failures are surfaced or whether the target folder must already exist, which are the remaining gaps for a write tool.

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 all four parameters (project, local_path, name, folder) are already documented, including the default-name behavior. The description adds only indirect meaning — the replacement rule indirectly explains the name parameter — so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Upload a local file ... into the project") and gives concrete examples of accepted file kinds (figure, .bib, .sty). It is clearly distinct from overleaf_write_file, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than asserted.

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?

The second sentence gives real preconditions for use — path must be under the working directory or CLAUCLOVERLEAF_FILE_DIRS, no hidden folders, LaTeX-related extension — which tells an agent when this tool will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over overleaf_write_file or overleaf_create_folder, and no mention of what happens when the constraints are violated.

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