mcp-overleaf

Read a file

read_file

Read text files from an Overleaf project, optionally limited to a line range, to inspect LaTeX sources or project content.

Instructions

Read a text file from an Overleaf project, optionally limited to a line range.

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": "read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Path relative to the project root, e.g. main.tex or sections/intro.tex
`project`	No	Project ID or Overleaf project URL (or project name in web mode). Defaults to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID.
`end_line`	No	Last line to return (inclusive).
`start_line`	No	First line to return (1-based).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the target is a text file (implying non-binary content) and that reads can be range-limited, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing paths, permission/auth requirements, or file-size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource first and the optional scoping second. No filler or redundancy.

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 four-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that it never describes the return shape (file contents as text), which an agent must infer.

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%, so path, project, start_line and end_line are already fully documented, including the 1-based and inclusive conventions. The description's line-range mention adds no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Read a text file from an Overleaf project') and adds the optional line-range scope. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling read_section, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'optionally limited to a line range' implies when the range parameters matter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as read_section or get_outline for partial/structured reads. Usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server