DeckExtract
Server Details
Download DocSend and Papermark decks as PDF or PPTX, including email-gated and protected links.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one checks account status, the other extracts decks. No functional overlap.
Both names are in snake_case and descriptive, but 'account_status' is a noun_noun pair while 'deckextract' is a compound verb_noun. Minor inconsistency lowers perfection.
With only two tools, the surface feels thin for a service that likely needs operations like listing extractions or managing quota. However, core extraction and account inquiry are covered.
Missing obvious tools like retrieval history, deletion, or plan management. The user cannot view past extractions or check extraction status without the Pro analysis feature.
Available Tools
2 toolsaccount_statusCheck your DeckExtract account statusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns the calling account's plan (free or Pro), whether it's signed in, and this month's extraction usage and remaining quota. Takes no input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | 'unlimited' is the Pro plan |
| No | ||
| isPro | Yes | |
| remaining | Yes | Extractions left this month; null when unlimited |
| monthlyLimit | Yes | Free-plan monthly cap; null when unlimited |
| monthlyUsage | Yes | Extractions used this calendar month |
| authenticated | Yes | Whether the caller is signed in |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact returned fields (plan, sign-in status, extraction usage, quota), providing context beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, efficiently conveying the purpose and output. Every sentence is necessary, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
Given zero parameters, existing annotations, and an output schema (not provided but implied to cover return structure), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool returns without needing more detail.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. By the rule, zero parameters receive a baseline of 4. The description correctly states it takes no input, so no further param info is needed.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns account plan, sign-in status, and usage/quota. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and distinguishes from sibling 'deckextract' which is likely a different operation.
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 description notes it takes no input, making its usage straightforward. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, but given zero parameters and clear purpose, the context is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
deckextractExtract a DocSend or Papermark deckAInspect
Extract a deck from a DocSend or Papermark sharing link. Returns a temporary download URL and a readable deckextract://deck/... resource for the PDF/PPTX (or a ZIP for data rooms). Pass analyze: true (requires a DeckExtract Pro account) to also return structured deck data. Typical extraction takes 15-90 seconds; the public API is rate limited to 5 extractions per IP per 30 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The deck sharing link, e.g. https://docsend.com/view/... or https://papermark.com/view/... | |
| No | Email to present to email-gated decks. If omitted, an ephemeral address is generated automatically when the deck requires one. | ||
| format | No | Output format (default 'pdf') | |
| analyze | No | If true, also return structured analysis of the deck (company, team, round, metrics, market, competition). Requires a DeckExtract Pro account. | |
| password | No | Passcode for passcode-protected decks |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | |
| analysis | No | Structured deck analysis (present when analyze=true succeeded) |
| expiresAt | Yes | ISO timestamp when the URL/resource expires |
| sizeBytes | Yes | |
| sourceUrl | Yes | |
| downloadUrl | Yes | Temporary URL of the extracted deck |
| resourceUri | Yes | MCP resource URI (deckextract://deck/...) to read the bytes via resources/read |
| analysisError | No | Set when extraction succeeded but analysis could not be produced |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (non-readonly, non-destructive), the description discloses extraction duration, rate limiting, ephemeral email generation, and Pro requirement for analysis. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context like latency.
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?
Two compact sentences that cover purpose, outputs, optional features, and constraints. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the primary action. No extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, optional analysis, rate limits), the description adequately covers inputs, outputs, constraints, and special behaviors. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need detailed description.
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?
The schema covers all five parameters with descriptions. The description adds overall context about output format and behavior (e.g., ephemeral email for email-gated decks, ZIP for data rooms). This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.
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?
The description clearly states the tool extracts a deck from a DocSend or Papermark link and returns a temporary download URL and resource identifier. It distinguishes itself from the only sibling (account_status) by specifying the exact resource and platform.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use (given a sharing link) and mentions the Pro account requirement for analysis. It also notes typical extraction time and rate limits. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, which is acceptable given the single sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!