Download DocSend and Papermark decks as PDF or PPTX, including email-gated and protected links.
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.
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one for account status and quota, the other for extracting decks. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
The naming styles differ: 'account_status' uses snake_case with a noun phrase, while 'deckextract' is a single lowercase word. Both are readable but the pattern is inconsistent.
With only 2 tools, the server is slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but the narrow scope of deck extraction justifies a minimal surface. The count feels acceptable.
The core extraction workflow is covered, including handling for OTP and resumable sessions. Minor gaps exist, such as no listing of past extractions or cancellation, but the domain is essentially complete.
account_statusCheck your DeckExtract account statusAReturns 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.
deckextractExtract a DocSend or Papermark deckAInspectExtract 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 (requires a DeckExtract Pro account) 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). Requires a DeckExtract Pro account. | |
| 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?
Beyond the annotations (which are minimal), the description discloses important behaviors: it returns a temporary download URL and a readable resource, treats data rooms as single extractions, requires a Pro account for analyze, and describes the two-step verification flows with resume tokens and their timeouts. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and retries, adding significant value over 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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence contributes unique information: core action, output, data-room exception, Pro analysis option, verification retries for both services, and performance/rate limits. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancies with the schema. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 (8 parameters, verification flows, output schema), the description covers all major operational aspects: it explains what is returned, the special treatment of data rooms, the conditions for requiring retries and how to resume them, and external constraints (Pro account, rate limits). The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed in the description. This is a complete guide for correct invocation.
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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining how parameters are used together (otp + otpSessionId for Papermark, url + sessionId for DocSend) and the behavior of the analyze parameter. It also clarifies the default format and the auto-generation of an ephemeral email. This is a meaningful complement to the schema, though a few parameters (email, password) are only marginally enhanced.
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 states the exact action: 'Extract a deck from a DocSend or Papermark sharing link.' It names the resource types (DocSend/Papermark), the output (temporary URL and deckextract:// resource), and special cases (ZIP for data rooms). This clearly distinguishes it from the only sibling, account_status.
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 provides detailed guidance on when to use the tool and how to handle various response flows: it explains the typical extraction time (15-90 seconds), rate limits (5 per IP per 30 minutes), and retry instructions for email verification (OTP for Papermark, confirmation link for DocSend). It also notes the Pro requirement for analyze:true. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives, the only sibling (account_status) is unrelated, so the context is sufficiently explicit.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
