FreeDailyPro Tools

pptx_repair

Read-onlyIdempotent

Try to repair a damaged PowerPoint (.pptx) from freedailypro that PowerPoint reports as needing repair or will not open, and get a new .pptx (base64) plus what was fixed and what was lost. Mends a missing or wrong file list, a missing or inconsistent slide list, dead links to pictures, charts and layouts, duplicate slide ids and a damaged zip index; pieces that cannot be saved are dropped and listed. A healthy file is returned unchanged with changed false. Cannot open password-protected files or old .ppt files.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fileBase64": "<fileBase64>"
    },
    "name": "pptx_repair"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileBase64`	Yes	The damaged .pptx, base64 encoded. Up to 50 MB.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it enumerates what is mended (file list, slide list, dead links, duplicate slide ids, zip index), discloses data loss ('pieces that cannot be saved are dropped and listed'), and states the no-op case ('healthy file returned unchanged with changed false'). It also discloses the input constraints that would cause failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger, then behavior, then limits. The middle sentence is a dense run-on list of repairable defects, but every clause carries real information, so only mild trimming would be possible.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description still explains the return shape (new .pptx as base64, a list of fixes, a list of losses, and a changed flag). Combined with the explicit failure modes, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% with a size limit already documented, so the baseline is 4. The description adds marginal value by implying the input must be an unencrypted modern .pptx rather than a .ppt, which is input-semantics information not present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('repair a damaged PowerPoint (.pptx)') plus the exact trigger condition ('PowerPoint reports as needing repair or will not open'). The scope is narrow enough to separate it from pptx_clean, pptx_compress_* and pdf_repair without needing to name them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (file reported as damaged or won't open) and explicit when-not conditions (password-protected files, legacy .ppt). It does not name a sibling alternative for cases the agent might conflate, e.g. pptx_clean for merely bloated files, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All FreeDailyPro Tools 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?