mcp-overleaf

Delete a file or folder

delete_file

Remove a file or folder from an Overleaf project via Git or web mode. Deleted items can be restored from Overleaf History.

Instructions

Delete a file or folder from the Overleaf project. Deleted files can be restored from Overleaf's History. Uses Git; falls back to the opt-in web mode if enabled.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	File or folder path relative to the project root.
`project`	No	Project ID or Overleaf project URL (or project name in web mode). Defaults to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID.
`commit_message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that deletion is recoverable via Overleaf's History, and that the operation goes through Git with a fallback to an opt-in web mode. It still omits permissions/auth requirements and whether deleting a folder is recursive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by reversibility and mechanism. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the reversibility and mechanism notes are valuable but incomplete: permission requirements, folder-recursion behavior, and failure/confirmation semantics are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% with commit_message carrying no description anywhere, and the description adds zero parameter-level meaning (path, project, commit_message are all unmentioned). It neither explains the commit message nor clarifies folder-path recursion semantics for 'path'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (file or folder) with explicit scope (from the Overleaf project). No sibling does deletion, so there is no ambiguity with move_file, write_file, or edit_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 only implied by the noun-phrase purpose; there is no statement of when to delete versus relocate with move_file, or any precondition. The note about restoration and the Git/web-mode mechanism gives adjacent context but not selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server