Skip to main content
Glama

status_summary

Retrieve a project status summary with default credentials for Overleaf projects. Ideal for quickly analyzing document structure and content via Git integration.

Instructions

Get a summary of the project status using default credentials

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNameNoProject name (default, project2, etc.)

Implementation Reference

  • The switch case that handles execution of the 'status_summary' tool. It retrieves the project client, lists all .tex files, identifies the main.tex (or first file), fetches sections from the main file, and returns a JSON-formatted summary including total files, main file name, total sections, and a list of the first 10 files.
    case 'status_summary': {
      const client = getProject(args.projectName);
      const files = await client.listFiles();
      const mainFile = files.find(f => f.includes('main.tex')) || files[0];
      let sections = [];
      
      if (mainFile) {
        sections = await client.getSections(mainFile);
      }
      
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify({
              totalFiles: files.length,
              mainFile,
              totalSections: sections.length,
              files: files.slice(0, 10),
            }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The tool registration object for 'status_summary' in the list_tools response, including the name, description, and input schema (optional projectName).
    {
      name: 'status_summary',
      description: 'Get a comprehensive project status summary',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          projectName: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Project identifier (optional)',
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • The input schema definition for the 'status_summary' tool, specifying an optional 'projectName' string parameter.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        projectName: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Project identifier (optional)',
        },
      },
    },
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

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