mcp-overleaf

Get review comments

get_comments

List review comment threads in an Overleaf project with commented text, file, line, and replies; optionally include resolved threads. Requires web mode.

Instructions

List review comment threads in the project with the commented text, file, line and replies. Web mode only (opt-in, see README).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	No	Project ID or Overleaf project URL (or project name in web mode). Defaults to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID.
`include_resolved`	No	Include resolved threads (default false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the web-mode-only opt-in constraint and the shape of returned data, but omits pagination, permission/auth requirements, and how it behaves when a project has no comments; it also defers the key constraint to an external README rather than explaining it.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its return contents. The trailing parenthetical "(opt-in, see README)" is slightly vague but does not bloat the text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, contents, and a key environment restriction. It could be more complete with pagination/ordering notes, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and both parameters (project, include_resolved) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List review comment threads") and even enumerates the returned content (commented text, file, line, replies). The read-only framing implicitly separates it from write siblings like add_comment/reply_comment/resolve_comment, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is the environment constraint "Web mode only (opt-in, see README)." There is no statement of when to prefer this over other tools or how it relates to resolve_comment/reply_comment, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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

Deploy Server