Read a text file directly from the live Overleaf document server to get a fresh snapshot and version, with an optional 1-based line range for targeted inspection.
Read a text file directly from the live document server. Each call obtains a fresh snapshot and version, not a ZIP or disk cache. Optional 1-based line range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| endLine | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| startLine | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: each call returns a fresh snapshot plus a version identifier and bypasses disk caches, which tells the agent results are always current. It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens at end-of-file.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the freshness guarantee and the range option. No filler, no repetition of the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (file text plus a fresh version) and how to narrow output via line range. Gaps remain around projectId identity and error/truncation behavior, but nothing critical blocks a correct call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only covers part of it: it clarifies that startLine/endLine form a 1-based optional range. Nothing is said about projectId (a 24-hex ObjectId), path semantics, or what happens if only startLine is supplied. Three of four parameters remain unexplained by either source.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Read a text file" names a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "directly from the live document server ... not a ZIP or disk cache" distinguishes it from the download_* siblings in the same toolset. An agent can tell this apart from download_file/download_project without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The ZIP/cache contrast implies when this tool is preferred over bulk download, but the description never names an alternative or states an explicit use/avoid condition. Usage is inferable rather than stated, so it lands at minimum-viable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.