Skip to main content
Glama

pull_changes

Sync local LaTeX projects with Overleaf by pulling remote changes to maintain version consistency across environments.

Instructions

Pull latest changes from Overleaf for a local project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localPathYesThe local path of the project

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the git pull using simple-git library.
    async pullChanges(localPath: string) {
        if (!await fs.pathExists(localPath)) {
            throw new Error(`Directory ${localPath} does not exist`);
        }
    
        const git: SimpleGit = simpleGit(localPath);
        try {
            await git.pull();
            return { success: true, message: 'Pulled latest changes' };
        } catch (error: any) {
            throw new Error(`Failed to pull changes: ${error.message}`);
        }
    }
  • MCP CallToolRequestSchema handler that delegates to GitManager.pullChanges.
    case 'pull_changes': {
        const { localPath } = request.params.arguments as any;
        const result = await gitManager.pullChanges(localPath);
        return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
        };
    }
  • src/index.ts:58-71 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including input schema.
    {
        name: 'pull_changes',
        description: 'Pull latest changes from Overleaf for a local project',
        inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
                localPath: {
                    type: 'string',
                    description: 'The local path of the project',
                },
            },
            required: ['localPath'],
        },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Pull latest changes') but does not describe what this entails (e.g., whether it overwrites local files, requires authentication, handles conflicts, or has side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively in context with sibling tools.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'localPath' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Pull latest changes') and the target resource ('from Overleaf for a local project'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'push_changes' or 'clone_project', which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'push_changes' or 'clone_project'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must already be cloned or configured) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/juho127/overleafMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server