Skip to main content
Glama

read_file

Access and retrieve specific files from Overleaf projects by providing the file path and project details. Enables reading LaTeX files, analyzing document structure, and extracting content via Git integration.

Instructions

Read a file from an Overleaf project

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the 'read_file' tool logic: creates an OverleafGitClient instance and invokes its readFile method to fetch and return the file contents as text response.
    case 'read_file': {
      const client = getProject(args.projectName);
      const content = await client.readFile(args.filePath);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: content,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Defines the input schema for the 'read_file' tool, specifying required 'filePath' and optional 'projectName' parameters.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        filePath: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Path to the file',
        },
        projectName: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Project identifier (optional)',
        },
      },
      required: ['filePath'],
    },
  • Registers the 'read_file' tool in the listTools response, providing name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'read_file',
      description: 'Read a file from an Overleaf project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          filePath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Path to the file',
          },
          projectName: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Project identifier (optional)',
          },
        },
        required: ['filePath'],
      },
    },
  • OverleafGitClient.readFile helper method that ensures the repository is up-to-date via cloneOrPull and reads the file content using Node.js fs.readFile.
    async readFile(filePath) {
      await this.cloneOrPull();
      const fullPath = path.join(this.repoPath, filePath);
      return await readFile(fullPath, 'utf-8');
    }
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.

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