ShareWatch

Create Presentation

create_presentation

Create a new Google Slides presentation with optional slides.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Presentation title
`slides_json`	No	JSON array of slide objects: [{"layout":"TITLE","title":"...","body":"..."}]. Layouts are Google Slides PredefinedLayout names — the same set build_presentation accepts: TITLE, TITLE_AND_BODY, TITLE_AND_TWO_COLUMNS, TITLE_ONLY, SECTION_HEADER, SECTION_TITLE_AND_DESCRIPTION, ONE_COLUMN_TEXT, CAPTION_ONLY, MAIN_POINT, BIG_NUMBER, BLANK. Unrecognised values are rejected before anything is created.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds that it creates a brand-new artifact with optional slides. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, or what happens on validation failure, but the high schema coverage and output schema reduce the burden; nothing contradicts the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, resource, and optionality are all present. It is concise rather than under-specified, though it leaves the sibling relationship unaddressed.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter creation tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The notable gap is the unaddressed build_presentation sibling, which may leave an agent uncertain whether to select this tool or the alternative for creating slides.

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% and the slides_json parameter includes a detailed explanation of layouts and rejection behavior, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description only adds 'optional slides,' which is useful but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a new Google Slides presentation'), and notes the optional slides payload. It differentiates from update_presentation and file-type siblings like create_document/create_spreadsheet, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling build_presentation, which appears to accept the same slide layouts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over build_presentation or update_presentation, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The schema mention of build_presentation hints at overlap, but the tool description itself does not route the agent to the correct alternative in any condition.

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

All ShareWatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the detailed descriptions separate similar-sounding ones. A few pairs could still be confused: access_file_by_url vs request_file_access, and create_document vs format_document, but their trigger conditions are described clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g. create_document, update_spreadsheet, delete_file. Minor deviations like build_presentation instead of create_presentation, and format_document alongside create_document, break the pattern slightly but remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end of the scale, though the domain spans Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides, which justifies a large surface. Some consolidation is possible — access_file_by_url and request_file_access overlap, as do create_document and format_document — so the count feels slightly bloated rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core file lifecycle well: create, read, update, delete, move, list, search, upload, and access control across all major Google Workspace document types. Minor gaps exist, such as no rename, copy, export, or direct sharing tool, but agents can work around these without major failures.

Resources

Need Help?