see_deckThe deck's rendered pages as images, page 1 first — look at them for overlapping or clipped text, odd spacing, an element off its page or a picture that does not say its page's claim, then fix that page and submit_page it again. Available once the deck has been rendered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / guest_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Only for a deck created WITHOUT an account: the guest_token create_deck returned.",
- "maxLength": 80,
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the return type (images), the page ordering, and the hard precondition that the deck must already be rendered.
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?
A single sentence with an em-dash aside that front-loads what is returned before the inspection checklist and remediation step. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries actionable 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?
With no output schema, the description steps in to say what comes back (rendered page images, page 1 first) and under what condition it is available, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Details like image count or resolution are absent but not critical.
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 is one parameter (deck_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes almost nothing. The description implies a rendered deck is required but never explains the identifier's format or constraints, leaving most parameter meaning to inference.
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 resource ('the deck's rendered pages as images') and ordering (page 1 first), which lets an agent distinguish this visual-inspection tool from read_page. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource, so it stops just short of a 5.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use context (inspect for overlapping/clipped text, odd spacing, misplaced elements, mismatched pictures) and the follow-up action (fix that page and submit_page it again), naming the sibling tool to route to. The precondition for availability is stated as well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.