list_filesList all files in an Overleaf project to inspect its structure and locate LaTeX sources. Pass a project ID, URL, or name; defaults to the configured OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID.
List all files in an Overleaf project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project ID or Overleaf project URL (or project name in web mode). Defaults to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing beyond the name: it does not say whether the listing is recursive, whether folders appear alongside files, what identifier format is returned, or that it is a safe read. Sibling read tools make read-only status likely, but that is inference, not disclosure.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate compression.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the definition is barely sufficient. With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned (paths, folder structure), and it does not.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage), including the default to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema already does the work.
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 (List) and resource (all files) scoped to an Overleaf project, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_projects. It does not, however, explicitly reference alternatives such as get_outline or read_file, so differentiation is achieved by implication rather than by naming.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before read_file or edit_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.