list_projectsRetrieve the Overleaf projects in your account with their project IDs, optionally including archived and trashed items, so you can select a project for editing or review.
List the Overleaf projects in your account with their IDs. Web mode only (opt-in, see README).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_archived | No | Also list archived and trashed projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope (account-level), that IDs are returned, and a mode restriction (web mode only, opt-in), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or failure behavior when not in web mode.
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?
Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing '(opt-in, see README)' parenthetical is slightly vague but does not bloat the definition.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about the returned shape beyond 'with their IDs', and it omits any mention of pagination or result limits.
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% for the single include_archived parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('List the Overleaf projects in your account with their IDs'), which is meaningfully distinct from the file-level siblings like list_files and read_file. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling to remove residual ambiguity about project-level vs file-level listing.
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?
The only guidance is a precondition ('Web mode only (opt-in, see README)'), which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_files or other discovery tools, and the 'see README' deferral leaves the opt-in mechanics unexplained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.