Download DocSend and Papermark decks as PDF or PPTX, including email-gated and protected links.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: account_status reports plan and quota, while deckextract performs the actual extraction. There is no overlap or risk of confusion between them.
The names use different conventions: account_status is snake_case, while deckextract is a single concatenated lowercase word. Both are readable and lowercase, but the set lacks a predictable shared verb_noun or noun_noun pattern.
Two tools is slightly below the ideal 3-15 range, but the server's purpose is narrow and both tools earn their place. It covers the core extraction action plus account/quota awareness without bloat.
The surface covers extraction, verification retries, usage quota, and account status. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone extraction history or explicit async job-status tool, but core workflows are supported.
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 | |||
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so behavioral traits are covered. The description adds detail on what data is returned, which is useful but not beyond what annotations convey.
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 sentences, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only tool with no parameters, good annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the key returned fields.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description confirms 'Takes no input,' matching the empty input schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns account plan, sign-in status, and usage/quota. Verb 'returns' and resource 'calling account's status' are specific. Sibling 'deckextract' is likely for a different purpose, so no confusion.
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?
Explicitly states it takes no input, implying it can be called freely. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but context with sibling tool makes it clear this is for status checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 — a DocSend Space or Papermark data room counts as one extraction like any other link). Pass analyze: true (part of DeckExtract for Funds) to also return structured deck data. Decks that email the viewer a verification step return resume tokens with retry instructions: fetch the emailed 6-digit code and retry with otp + otpSessionId (Papermark), or retry with url set to the emailed confirmation link + sessionId (DocSend). Typical extraction takes 15-90 seconds; the public API is rate limited to 5 extractions per IP per 30 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| otp | No | The 6-digit verification code the deck emailed to the viewer (requires_email_otp step). Send together with otpSessionId. | |
| url | Yes | The deck sharing link, e.g. https://docsend.com/view/... or https://papermark.com/view/... — on a requires_email_confirmation retry, pass the confirmation link from the verification email instead. | |
| 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). Part of DeckExtract for Funds. | |
| password | No | Passcode for passcode-protected decks | |
| sessionId | No | Resume token from a prior requires_password or requires_email_confirmation reply. Echo it on the retry so the same viewer session is reused. | |
| otpSessionId | No | Resume token from a prior requires_email_otp reply. The parked session lives ~5 minutes; a wrong code returns a fresh token. |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the return shape (temporary download URL plus a deckextract:// resource), ZIP output for data rooms, the analyze opt-in tied to DeckExtract for Funds, resume-token retry mechanics, 15-90 second latency, and a 5-per-IP-per-30-minute rate limit. The annotations only flag openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description carries real operational weight without contradicting them.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then layered retry/rate-limit detail. Dense but nearly every sentence conveys actionable information; the parenthetical about data rooms is slightly clunky but earns its place by clarifying ZIP behavior.
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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the gaps the schema does not: async timing, rate limits, retry/auth paths, and output alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke and recover from failure.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the workflow interlock between parameters (that otp is fetched from the emailed code and must be paired with the resumed session, and that url is repurposed as the confirmation link on a retry). This adds meaning about how parameters relate, not just what they are.
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?
States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('a deck') plus the exact source domains (DocSend or Papermark sharing link). It is trivially distinguishable from the only sibling, account_status, which is an unrelated account tool.
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?
Gives concrete conditional guidance: how to handle decks that trigger an emailed verification step, which parameters to retry with for Papermark (otp + otpSessionId) vs DocSend (url confirmation link + sessionId), and that data rooms should be passed as a normal link. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
deckextract1 field changedInput schema / properties / analyze / descriptionPrevious value: -"If true, also return structured analysis of the deck (company, team, round, metrics, market, competition). Requires a DeckExtract Pro account."New value: +"If true, also return structured analysis of the deck (company, team, round, metrics, market, competition). Part of DeckExtract for Funds."deckextract4 fields changedInput schema / properties / otpAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The 6-digit verification code the deck emailed to the viewer (requires_email_otp step). Send together with otpSessionId.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / otpSessionIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Resume token from a prior requires_email_otp reply. The parked session lives ~5 minutes; a wrong code returns a fresh token.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sessionIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Resume token from a prior requires_password or requires_email_confirmation reply. Echo it on the retry so the same viewer session is reused.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / url / descriptionPrevious value: -"The deck sharing link, e.g. https://docsend.com/view/... or https://papermark.com/view/..."New value: +"The deck sharing link, e.g. https://docsend.com/view/... or https://papermark.com/view/... — on a requires_email_confirmation retry, pass the confirmation link from the verification email instead."account_statusdeckextract1 field changedInput schema / properties / analyze / descriptionPrevious value: -"If true, also return structured analysis of the deck (company, team, round, metrics, market, competition). Requires a DeckExtract Pro API key in the Authorization header."New value: +"If true, also return structured analysis of the deck (company, team, round, metrics, market, competition). Requires a DeckExtract Pro account."deckextract7 fields changedInput schema / properties / analyzeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, also return structured analysis of the deck (company, team, round, metrics, market, competition). Requires a DeckExtract Pro API key in the Authorization header.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / analysisAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Structured deck analysis (present when analyze=true succeeded)"
+}Output schema / properties / analysisErrorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Set when extraction succeeded but analysis could not be produced",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / expiresAt / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO timestamp when the URL expires"New value: +"ISO timestamp when the URL/resource expires"Output schema / properties / format / enumPrevious value: -[
- "pdf",
- "pptx"
-]New value: +[
+ "pdf",
+ "pptx",
+ "zip"
+]Output schema / properties / resourceUriAdded value: +{
+ "description": "MCP resource URI (deckextract://deck/...) to read the bytes via resources/read",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "downloadUrl",
- "format",
- "sizeBytes",
- "expiresAt",
- "sourceUrl"
-]New value: +[
+ "downloadUrl",
+ "resourceUri",
+ "format",
+ "sizeBytes",
+ "expiresAt",
+ "sourceUrl"
+]deckextractCreate polished slide decks from text or YouTube links in seconds. Fetch video transcripts to tran…
Generate, edit, and export AI presentations to PDF, PPTX, or a shareable link.
Convert documents and web pages to clean Markdown: PDF, DOCX, XLSX, EPUB, scanned files, any URL.
Extract PDFs to Markdown, RAG chunks and cited tables; publish tracked Doc Links with read stats.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
