What can you do with this server?

The Overleaf MCP Server lets you manage Overleaf LaTeX projects via Git integration, supporting file operations, LaTeX content analysis, and multi-project workflows. * List Projects (list_projects): View all configured Overleaf projects. * List Files (list_files): Browse files in a project, with optional filtering by extension (defaults to .tex). * Read File (read_file): Read the full content of a specific file. * Get Sections (get_sections): Extract all section/subsection headings from a LaTeX file. * Get Section Content (get_section_content): Retrieve the content of a specific named section. * Status Summary (status_summary): Get an overview of a project's status and structure. * Write File (write_file): Write full content to a file in a project. * Write Section (write_section): Replace the content of a specific LaTeX section. Multi-project support is available via the projectName parameter, and credentials can be passed inline or via environment variables.

Which integrations are available for this server?

Uses Git integration to access and manage Overleaf project files, enabling file retrieval and content extraction from Overleaf repositories. Provides tools for parsing LaTeX document structure, extracting sections and subsections, and retrieving specific content from LaTeX files in Overleaf projects. Enables access to Overleaf projects via Git integration, allowing for listing and reading files, parsing LaTeX sections and subsections, extracting specific content by section title, and obtaining project summaries.

How do I use Overleaf MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Overleaf MCP Server read the introduction section from main.tex" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

en es ja ko ru zh

Overleaf MCP Server

by mjyoo2

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Hybrid

Overleaf MCP Server

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that provides access to Overleaf projects via Git integration. This allows Claude and other MCP clients to read LaTeX files, analyze document structure, extract content, and write files from and to Overleaf projects.

Features

📄 File Management: List, read, and write files from and to Overleaf projects
📋 Document Structure: Parse LaTeX sections and subsections
🔍 Content Extraction: Extract specific sections by title
📊 Project Summary: Get overview of project status and structure
🏗️ Multi-Project Support: Manage multiple Overleaf projects

Related MCP server: Overleaf MCP Server

Quick Start (recommended)

No clone, no npm install. Add this block to your Claude Desktop config and restart Claude Desktop.

Config file location

OS	Path
Windows	`%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json`
macOS	`~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json`
Linux	`~/.config/claude/claude_desktop_config.json`

macOS / Linux

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "overleaf": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@mjyoo2/overleaf-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID": "YOUR_OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID",
        "OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN": "YOUR_OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN"
      }
    }
  }
}

Windows — Claude Desktop on Windows needs cmd /c to find npx:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "overleaf": {
      "command": "cmd",
      "args": ["/c", "npx", "-y", "@mjyoo2/overleaf-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID": "YOUR_OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID",
        "OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN": "YOUR_OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN"
      }
    }
  }
}

Restart Claude Desktop. The overleaf tools should appear in the 🔧 menu.

Multi-Project Setup

The env-var Quick Start only handles a single project. For multiple projects, drop a projects.json file into the user config directory and skip the env block in your Claude Desktop config.

File location

OS	Path
Windows	`%APPDATA%\overleaf-mcp\projects.json`
macOS / Linux	`~/.config/overleaf-mcp/projects.json` (or `$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/overleaf-mcp/projects.json` if set)

File contents

{
  "projects": {
    "default": {
      "name": "Main Paper",
      "projectId": "...",
      "gitToken": "olp_..."
    },
    "thesis": {
      "name": "PhD Thesis",
      "projectId": "...",
      "gitToken": "olp_..."
    }
  }
}

Claude Desktop config — same as Quick Start but no env block:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "overleaf": {
      "command": "cmd",
      "args": ["/c", "npx", "-y", "@mjyoo2/overleaf-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

(Drop cmd /c on macOS / Linux.)

Reference a specific project in tool calls with projectName:

Use read_file with filePath: "main.tex", projectName: "thesis"

If projectName is omitted, the default entry is used. To put projects.json somewhere other than the standard location, point OVERLEAF_PROJECTS_CONFIG=/absolute/path/projects.json at it from the env block.

Getting Overleaf Credentials

Project ID — open your Overleaf project; the ID is in the URL: https://www.overleaf.com/project/[PROJECT_ID]
Git Token — Overleaf → Account Settings → Git Integration → "Create Token"

Configuration Reference

The server picks the first matching configuration source:

Env vars (single project) — OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID + OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN. Optional: OVERLEAF_PROJECT_NAME for the display name.
Token from a file — set OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID together with OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN_FILE=/path/to/token.txt (instead of OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN). Useful when you don't want the token in the Claude Desktop JSON. The file is read once at startup and any trailing whitespace/newline is trimmed.
Multi-project file — OVERLEAF_PROJECTS_CONFIG=/absolute/path/projects.json.
User config dir — projects.json in:
- Windows: %APPDATA%\overleaf-mcp\projects.json
- macOS / Linux: $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/overleaf-mcp/projects.json (defaults to ~/.config/overleaf-mcp/projects.json)
Working directory — ./projects.json
Package directory — projects.json next to the server script (legacy, for clone-based installs).

When env vars are set and a file is also present, env vars win and a notice is logged to stderr so the shadowing is visible.

`projects.json` schema (multi-project)

{
  "projects": {
    "default": {
      "name": "Main Paper",
      "projectId": "...",
      "gitToken": "olp_..."
    },
    "paper2": {
      "name": "Second Paper",
      "projectId": "...",
      "gitToken": "olp_..."
    }
  }
}

Then specify the project in tool calls: projectName: "paper2".

Local Development

If you want to hack on the server, test changes before publishing, or use it without the npm package being available, you have three local-install options.

Option 1 — Run the cloned script directly

git clone https://github.com/mjyoo2/OverleafMCP.git
cd OverleafMCP
npm install

Then point Claude Desktop at the script and pass credentials via env vars (the same loader path the npm package uses):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "overleaf": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/OverleafMCP/overleaf-mcp-server.js"],
      "env": {
        "OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID": "...",
        "OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN": "olp_..."
      }
    }
  }
}

On Windows, args should use "C:\\Users\\you\\OverleafMCP\\overleaf-mcp-server.js".

If you'd rather use a multi-project file:

cp projects.example.json projects.json   # then edit it

projects.json next to the script is the lowest-priority fallback, so this still works without env vars.

Option 2 — Test the packed npm artifact locally

Validates almost the same code path users hit through the public registry, useful before pushing a release:

npm pack
# → mjyoo2-overleaf-mcp-<version>.tgz

Point Claude Desktop at the tarball. Note the explicit --package= and bin name — npx -y <tarball-path> does not work in npm 10+ (the path is mis-detected as an executable):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "overleaf": {
      "command": "cmd",
      "args": [
        "/c", "npx", "-y",
        "--package=C:\\absolute\\path\\to\\mjyoo2-overleaf-mcp-<version>.tgz",
        "overleaf-mcp"
      ],
      "env": {
        "OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID": "...",
        "OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN": "olp_..."
      }
    }
  }
}

On macOS / Linux drop the cmd /c wrapper: "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "--package=/abs/path/to/...tgz", "overleaf-mcp"].

Option 3 — Smoke-test the MCP protocol from the shell

No Claude Desktop required:

OVERLEAF_PROJECT_ID=... OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN=... node overleaf-mcp-server.js

You should see Overleaf MCP server running on stdio on stderr. The process stays open waiting for JSON-RPC on stdin; Ctrl+C to exit.

Available Tools

`list_projects`

List all configured projects.

`list_files`

List files in a project (default: .tex files).

extension: File extension filter (optional)
projectName: Project identifier (optional, defaults to "default")

`read_file`

Read a specific file from the project.

filePath: Path to the file (required)
projectName: Project identifier (optional)

`get_sections`

Get all sections from a LaTeX file.

filePath: Path to the LaTeX file (required)
projectName: Project identifier (optional)

`get_section_content`

Get content of a specific section.

filePath: Path to the LaTeX file (required)
sectionTitle: Title of the section (required)
projectName: Project identifier (optional)

`status_summary`

Get a comprehensive project status summary.

projectName: Project identifier (optional)

`write_file`

Write the full content of a file to the project.

filePath: Path to the file (required)
content: Content to write to the file (required)
commitMessage: Commit message (required)
projectName: Project identifier (optional)

`write_section`

Write the content of a specific section to the project.

filePath: Path to the file (required)
sectionTitle: Title of the section (required)
newContent: Replacement content for the section, including the section heading (required)
commitMessage: Commit message (required)
projectName: Project identifier (optional)

Usage Examples

# List all projects
Use the list_projects tool

# Get project overview
Use status_summary tool

# Read main.tex file
Use read_file with filePath: "main.tex"

# Get Introduction section
Use get_section_content with filePath: "main.tex" and sectionTitle: "Introduction"

# List all sections in a file
Use get_sections with filePath: "main.tex"

# Write the full content of a file to the project
Use write_file with filePath: "main.tex", content: "...", commitMessage: "..."

# Write the content of a specific section to the project
Use write_section with filePath: "main.tex", sectionTitle: "Introduction", newContent: "\\section{Introduction}\n...", commitMessage: "..."

Security Notes

The Overleaf Git token grants full read/write access to your project — treat it like a password.
Prefer OVERLEAF_GIT_TOKEN_FILE over inlining the token in the Claude Desktop JSON if your config file is backed up or synced.
projects.json is .gitignored in this repo. Never commit real project IDs or Git tokens.
File paths supplied through MCP tool calls are restricted to the cloned project directory; .. traversal and absolute paths are rejected.

License

MIT License

Available Tools

6 tools

get_section_contentC

Get content of a specific section

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filePath`	Yes	Path to the LaTeX file
`gitToken`	No	Git token (optional, uses env var)
`projectId`	No	Project ID (optional, uses env var)
`projectName`	No	Project name (default, project2, etc.)
`sectionTitle`	Yes	Title of the section

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get content') without detailing how it works (e.g., whether it fetches from a repository, handles errors, or returns structured data). This leaves critical behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or output format unspecified.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'content' means (e.g., text, metadata), how it relates to LaTeX files or Git, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters like 'filePath' and 'sectionTitle'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get content of a specific section', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'content of a specific section', but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'get_sections', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_file' (which might read entire files) or 'get_sections' (which might list sections), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without direction.

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

get_sectionsC

Get all sections from a LaTeX file

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filePath`	Yes	Path to the LaTeX file
`gitToken`	No	Git token (optional, uses env var)
`projectId`	No	Project ID (optional, uses env var)
`projectName`	No	Project name (default, project2, etc.)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all sections' but doesn't explain what 'sections' means (e.g., LaTeX section commands like \section), how they are returned (e.g., list of strings, structured data), or any limitations (e.g., file size, parsing errors). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., format of sections), error handling, or dependencies between parameters. For a tool that parses LaTeX files, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how gitToken and projectId relate to filePath). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'sections from a LaTeX file', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_section_content' or 'read_file', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_section_content' or 'read_file'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

list_filesC

List all files in an Overleaf project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`extension`	No	File extension filter (e.g., .tex)	.tex
`gitToken`	No	Git token (optional, uses env var)
`projectId`	No	Project ID (optional, uses env var)
`projectName`	No	Project name (default, project2, etc.)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are formatted, or any rate limits, which is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for effective use, leaving significant gaps despite the concise statement of purpose.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a listing operation, meeting the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'files in an Overleaf project', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_sections', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'get_sections'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

list_projectsB

List all available projects

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all available projects' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. archived). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'List all available projects'. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for contextual understanding. It doesn't explain what 'projects' entail, the format of the returned list, or any constraints like visibility or access controls. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent fully, especially regarding behavioral aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to describe. This meets the baseline for tools with zero parameters, as there's no need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 'List all available projects' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('projects') with scope ('all available'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' (different resource) and 'get_sections' (different operation), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_sections' or 'list_files'. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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

read_fileC

Read a file from an Overleaf project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filePath`	Yes	Path to the file
`gitToken`	No	Git token (optional, uses env var)
`projectId`	No	Project ID (optional, uses env var)
`projectName`	No	Project name (default, project2, etc.)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads a file but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., file content format). This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with external resources.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of reading files from a project management system, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or output format, which are crucial for effective tool use.

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 parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'filePath' relates to Overleaf's structure or when to use 'gitToken' versus environment variables. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('a file from an Overleaf project'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_section_content' or 'list_files', which might have overlapping functionality in reading file content, so it misses the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_section_content' or 'list_files'. The description lacks context about scenarios where this tool is preferred, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

status_summaryC

Get a summary of the project status using default credentials

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectName`	No	Project name (default, project2, etc.)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using default credentials', which adds some context about authentication, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns a status summary. It lacks details on what the summary includes, format, or any behavioral context beyond credentials. For a tool with 1 parameter and no structured output documentation, more information is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'projectName' documented as 'Project name (default, project2, etc.)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'default' refers to or how the parameter influences the summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a summary') and resource ('project status'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'get_sections', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes a status summary from other project-related operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects'. It mentions 'using default credentials', which hints at authentication context but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions for usage relative to other tools.

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

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different resources or actions: list_projects (projects), list_files (files within a project), read_file (content of a file), get_sections (sections within a file), get_section_content (content of a specific section), and status_summary (project overview). There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: list_projects, list_files, read_file, get_sections, get_section_content, and status_summary. The verbs (list, read, get) are appropriate and predictable, making the set easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing Overleaf projects, covering core operations like listing projects/files, reading content, and getting summaries. The count is appropriate—neither too sparse nor bloated—for the domain of LaTeX project management.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides good coverage for reading and listing operations in Overleaf projects, but there are minor gaps in write/update capabilities (e.g., no tools for creating or editing files/sections). Agents can work around this for read-only tasks, but full lifecycle management is incomplete.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

milatexai
io.github.yasaminfayyaz
Edit your Overleaf LaTeX projects from Claude and ChatGPT; every change is a real Git commit.
Developer Tools Version Control Content Management Systems
22
searchcode A
com.searchcode
Code intelligence for LLMs. Analyze, search, and retrieve code from any public git repository.
Search Code Analysis Version Control
62
latex
app.ofia
Persistent AI LaTeX workspace: edit and compile multi-file projects, export publication-ready PDFs.
Workplace & Productivity Developer Tools Research & Data
2
Hint-Services-obsidian-github-mcp
ai.smithery
Connect AI assistants to your GitHub-hosted Obsidian vault to seamlessly access, search, and analy…
Note Taking Version Control File Systems
29

Related MCP Servers

Overleaf MCP Server
Version Control Developer Tools Content Management Systems
GhoshSrinjoy
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables access to Overleaf LaTeX projects through Git integration, allowing users to read files, analyze document structure, extract sections, and manage multiple projects through natural language commands.
Updated 8 months ago (2025-12-20 11:38 UTC)
18
9
MIT
Overleaf MCP Server
Version Control Developer Tools Content Management Systems
juho127
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Integrates with Overleaf's Git feature to manage LaTeX projects directly from MCP-enabled environments, enabling cloning, syncing, and pushing changes between local machine and Overleaf.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-11-25 03:17 UTC)
5
18
MIT
overleaf-mcp
Content Management Systems App Automation Research & Data
amcheste
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables editing Overleaf projects from Claude, with tools to list, read, edit, and sync files via Git.
Updated 3 days ago (2026-09-01 09:06 UTC)
MIT
@markfu909/overleaf-mcp
Content Management Systems Research & Data Education & Learning Tools
tianhao909
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that provides access to Overleaf projects via Git integration, enabling Claude and other MCP clients to read LaTeX files, analyze document structure, and extract content.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-02 11:24 UTC)
10
1
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mjyoo2/OverleafMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

Overleaf MCP Server

Features

Quick Start (recommended)

Multi-Project Setup

Getting Overleaf Credentials

Configuration Reference

projects.json schema (multi-project)

Local Development

Option 1 — Run the cloned script directly

Option 2 — Test the packed npm artifact locally

Option 3 — Smoke-test the MCP protocol from the shell

Available Tools

list_projects

list_files

read_file

get_sections

get_section_content

status_summary

write_file

write_section

Usage Examples

Security Notes

License

Available Tools

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

`projects.json` schema (multi-project)

`list_projects`

`list_files`

`read_file`

`get_sections`

`get_section_content`

`status_summary`

`write_file`

`write_section`