mcp-overleaf

Reply to a comment

reply_comment

Add a reply to an existing Overleaf comment thread; use a thread ID from get_comments and provide reply text. Web mode only.

Instructions

Add a reply to an existing comment thread (thread IDs come from get_comments). Web mode only (opt-in, see README).

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": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "reply_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	Reply text.
`project`	No	Project ID or Overleaf project URL (or project name in web mode). Defaults to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID.
`thread_id`	Yes	Thread ID from get_comments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 usefully discloses the web-mode opt-in gate and the prerequisite source of thread IDs, but says nothing about permissions, failure behavior in non-web modes, or whether the reply is reversible/visible to others.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraints appended; nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (3 params, 2 required), but with no annotations and no output schema the description would benefit from stating what the call returns or confirming the required auth/web-mode setup rather than deferring to the README. It covers the essentials but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 project, content, and thread_id are already documented with format and defaults. The description only restates that thread IDs come from get_comments, adding no syntax or usage detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Add a reply to an existing comment thread") and the word "reply" vs. a plain comment reasonably separates it from the sibling add_comment. It also names get_comments as the source of thread IDs, which aids disambiguation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with add_comment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a clear prerequisite workflow ("thread IDs come from get_comments") and a deployment condition ("Web mode only (opt-in, see README)"). It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or explicitly routing the agent to alternatives like add_comment.

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

Deploy Server