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 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
account_status and deckextract have clearly distinct purposes: one manages account/quota status, the other performs the core extraction task. No overlap or ambiguity.
The names follow different patterns: 'account_status' is a noun-noun compound, while 'deckextract' is a verb-noun compound without an underscore. With only two tools, the inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
The server has only two tools, which feels minimal, but the scope is narrow (extract decks and check account status). It is borderline but not unreasonable.
The core extraction workflow is well-covered, including handling of OTP/verification steps and retries. Minor gaps include no listing or management of previous extractions, but the main use case is 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 DeckExtract Pro feature; free plans extract single documents, including individual documents inside a room). 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?
Goes far beyond annotations by disclosing rate limits (5 per 30 min), typical extraction time (15-90s), pro feature requirements, and detailed email/OTP verification flows. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false aligns with the side effects of creating temporary URLs and resources.
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 long but information-dense; every sentence contributes to understanding complex behaviors (verification, pro features, rate limits). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.
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 (multiple verification flows, pro features, output types), the description covers all major aspects: output formats, temporary URL, resource URL, data room ZIPs, analyze option, retry instructions, and rate limits. The output schema exists, so return values need not be elaborated.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema, such as using 'otp' + 'otpSessionId' for Papermark retries, 'url' as confirmation link for DocSend retries, and 'analyze' requiring Pro. This enhances the raw schema definitions.
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 verb 'Extract' with specific resources (DocSend or Papermark sharing link) and output formats (PDF/PPTX/ZIP). It distinguishes itself from the only sibling, account_status, by detailing its unique function and return resource.
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 rich usage context including when to pass analyze, how to handle retry scenarios (OTP, email confirmation), and rate limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use this instead of account_status', but the purpose makes the distinction clear, and no direct alternative exists.
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!
