Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-overleaf

mcp-overleaf

by kimhyunji24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Resolve or reopen a comment

resolve_comment

Mark an Overleaf comment thread as resolved, or reopen a resolved thread to continue discussion. Web mode only.

Instructions

Mark a comment thread as resolved, or reopen a resolved one. 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>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reopenNoReopen instead of resolve.
projectNoProject ID or Overleaf project URL (or project name in web mode). Defaults to OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID.
thread_idYesThread ID from get_comments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the action is reversible (resolve or reopen) and requires web mode opt-in, but omits permissions, side effects on notifications, and idempotency details.

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 short sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded, followed by the mode prerequisite, so the agent gets the essential information immediately.

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 state-change tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the web-mode requirement. It could be more explicit about what web mode entails, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including thread_id's format, project defaults, and the reopen flag. The description adds no parameter 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the exact action: mark a comment thread resolved or reopen it. The resource (comment thread) and the state-change operation clearly distinguish it from siblings like add_comment, reply_comment, and get_comments.

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?

Provides the context 'Web mode only (opt-in, see README),' which is useful, but does not name alternatives or say when to choose resolve versus reopen beyond the parameter name. Usage is implied by the tool name, with no explicit when-not 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