Delete a file or document from an Overleaf project by remote path, asking for confirmation in the MCP client before deletion.
Delete a file or document from an Overleaf project by its remote path. Asks the user to confirm in the MCP client before writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The Overleaf project ID | |
| remote_path | Yes | Path of the file/document to delete within the project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the MCP client asks the user to confirm before writing, which is not captured in the annotations and matters for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then the confirmation behavior. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter destructive mutation whose annotations already cover risk traits, the description supplies the key user-confirmation behavior and scope. It does not describe error handling for missing files, but no output schema exists and the core calling context is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both required parameters are already fully documented. The description adds only a light reference to remote path and does not supplement parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a file or document') and scopes it to an Overleaf project by remote path. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby mutation siblings such as rename_entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the delete operation and remote path, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The confirmation note helps but is behavioral rather than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed