Rename an Overleaf project itself, not files or folders, and require user confirmation in the MCP client before writing the change.
Rename an Overleaf project itself (not a file inside it). Use rename_entity for files and folders. Asks the user to confirm in the MCP client before writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | New project name | |
| project_id | Yes | The Overleaf project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds non-schema behavior the agent needs: the call triggers a user confirmation prompt in the MCP client before writing.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the defining scope constraint front-loaded ahead of the sibling exclusion and the confirmation note.
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 write tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, this covers purpose, alternatives and the confirmation flow. It could mention whether the rename takes effect immediately or what a successful call returns, but nothing essential is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% (both project_id and new_name documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about name constraints or format beyond what the schema states.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Rename an Overleaf project itself') and immediately scopes it against the file-inside-project case. An agent can distinguish it from rename_entity without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly routes file/folder renames to rename_entity and notes the client-side confirmation step. It does not mention the sibling plan_project_renames, which sounds closely related and could confuse tool selection.
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