Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-overleaf

mcp-overleaf

by kimhyunji24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read a section

read_section

Read the LaTeX source of a specific Overleaf section by title, even with partial or case-insensitive matching, to retrieve its content without searching the full project.

Instructions

Read the LaTeX source of one section by its title (case-insensitive; partial titles work if unambiguous).

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "read_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoRestrict the search to this file.
titleYesSection title, e.g. 'Related Work'
projectNoProject ID or Overleaf project URL (or project name in web mode). Defaults to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 discloses matching behavior and that it returns LaTeX source, but omits what happens on an ambiguous title, permission requirements, and project resolution defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The added matching caveat earns its place without bloating the definition.

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 read tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the key return content and matching behavior an agent needs. It could mention ambiguous-title handling, but the essential call information is present.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds matching semantics for the title parameter but says nothing about file or project, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 the LaTeX source of one section. It distinguishes the tool from read_file by scope ('one section') and from get_outline by returning source content, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Gives useful invocation detail (case-insensitive, partial titles work if unambiguous), but does not say when to prefer this over read_file, get_outline, or other sibling tools. Usage is implied by resource specificity rather than explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools