Bisque Presentations

Read a presentation's editable source

get_presentation_source

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the HTML a presentation was published from, so you can edit it and publish it back to the same URL. Only for a presentation this account may republish; anyone else's reads as not found, including a public one (use get_presentation_context to read those). Target it by presentationId, or by watch URL or handle + slug. To republish, change only what you were asked to in indexHtml and call create_presentation with the same presentationId, slug and visibility, plus each entry of assets as {path, url}; slides whose narration did not change keep their audio.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_presentation_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Watch URL, e.g. https://bisque.today/p/{handle}/{slug}. Provide this, handle + slug, or presentationId.
`slug`	No	URL slug, the last path segment of the watch URL.
`handle`	No	Channel handle (leading @ allowed).
`presentationId`	No	From list_presentations or get_presentation_context.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`voice`	Yes	The voice and speed the slides were spoken in. Republishing in them keeps the audio of every unchanged slide.
`assets`	Yes	Every file under assets/, with a download link that works for one hour. A republish that leaves one out loses it.
`handle`	No
`webUrl`	Yes
`version`	Yes	The version this source is.
`madeWith`	No
`contextMd`	Yes
`indexHtml`	Yes	The HTML as published, complete.
`visibility`	Yes
`description`	No
`publishedAt`	No
`presentationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses ownership and access behavior: presentations the account may not republish read as not found, including public ones. It also explains republishing constraints, required create_presentation fields, asset shape, and audio preservation for unchanged narration.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action, then access constraints, then targeting, then republishing guidance. Every sentence carries operational value, and the republishing note is dense but justified because it prevents incorrect follow-up calls.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. The description covers access constraints, sibling differentiation, targeting alternatives, and the republish workflow, leaving no major ambiguity for a four-parameter read tool.

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 url, slug, handle, and presentationId, including the alternative targeting methods. The description repeats the targeting options but does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: reading the HTML source a presentation was published from for editing and republishing. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_presentation_context for public or non-republishable presentations, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states exactly when to use this tool: when the account may republish the presentation and the goal is to edit and republish to the same URL. It also states when not to use it, naming get_presentation_context for anyone else's presentation including public ones.

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

All Bisque Presentations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?