Skip to main content
Glama

get_section_content

Extracts specific section content from a LaTeX file in an Overleaf project, enabling targeted analysis and retrieval of document segments using file path and section title.

Instructions

Get content of a specific section

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath to the LaTeX file
gitTokenNoGit token (optional, uses env var)
projectIdNoProject ID (optional, uses env var)
projectNameNoProject name (default, project2, etc.)
sectionTitleYesTitle of the section

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function in OverleafGitClient that implements get_section_content logic: reads file, finds sections, extracts content between target section and next.
    async getSectionContent(filePath, sectionTitle) {
      const content = await this.readFile(filePath);
      const sections = await this.getSections(filePath);
      
      const targetSection = sections.find(s => s.title === sectionTitle);
      if (!targetSection) {
        throw new Error(`Section "${sectionTitle}" not found`);
      }
      
      const nextSection = sections.find(s => s.index > targetSection.index);
      const startIdx = targetSection.index;
      const endIdx = nextSection ? nextSection.index : content.length;
      
      return content.substring(startIdx, endIdx);
    }
  • Input schema definition for the get_section_content tool, specifying required filePath and sectionTitle parameters.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        filePath: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Path to the LaTeX file',
        },
        sectionTitle: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Title of the section',
        },
        projectName: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Project identifier (optional)',
        },
      },
      required: ['filePath', 'sectionTitle'],
    },
  • Registration and dispatch logic in the CallToolRequestSchema handler switch statement.
    case 'get_section_content': {
      const client = getProject(args.projectName);
      const content = await client.getSectionContent(args.filePath, args.sectionTitle);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: content,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Helper method getSections used by getSectionContent to parse LaTeX sections and their positions.
    async getSections(filePath) {
      const content = await this.readFile(filePath);
      const sections = [];
      const sectionRegex = /\\(?:section|subsection|subsubsection)\{([^}]+)\}/g;
      let match;
      
      while ((match = sectionRegex.exec(content)) !== null) {
        sections.push({
          title: match[1],
          type: match[0].split('{')[0].replace('\\', ''),
          index: match.index
        });
      }
      
      return sections;
    }
  • Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema response, including name, description, and schema.
    {
      name: 'get_section_content',
      description: 'Get content of a specific section',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          filePath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Path to the LaTeX file',
          },
          sectionTitle: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Title of the section',
          },
          projectName: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Project identifier (optional)',
          },
        },
        required: ['filePath', 'sectionTitle'],
      },
    },
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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