Skip to main content
Glama

SlideForge

by dev.slideforge

Translate PPTX

translate_deck

Translate a PowerPoint (.pptx) deck preserving all formatting. $0.02/slide. Supports 32 languages (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek scripts). Provide job_id (from a previous create_slide/create_deck), pptx_url, or pptx_base64.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoJob name
job_idNoSource: previous slide/deck job ID (preferred — no file transfer needed)
pptx_urlNoSource: HTTPS URL to .pptx
pptx_base64NoSource: Base64-encoded .pptx (max ~10 MB)
concise_modeNoPrefer shorter translations for tight text boxes
include_notesNoTranslate speaker notes (default false)
include_tablesNoTranslate table cells (default true)
include_previewNoWait+embed preview (default=wait)
source_languageNoSource language or 'auto' (default auto)
target_languageYesTarget language (required)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: cost ('$0.02/slide'), language scope ('32 languages (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek scripts)'), and formatting preservation. The annotations are all false, so this extra context is valuable for the agent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost, language support, and input sources. Every sentence contributes unique information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: purpose, cost, supported languages, and source alternatives. It doesn't describe return values, but the rich schema descriptions and cost details make it reasonably complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of source options mirrors schema descriptions rather than adding new semantic meaning; it doesn't elaborate on parameters like concise_mode or include_notes beyond what's already 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Translate a PowerPoint (.pptx) deck') and a key differentiator ('preserving all formatting'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_deck and create_slide, which focus on creation rather than translation.

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?

The description provides explicit input options ('Provide job_id (from a previous create_slide/create_deck), pptx_url, or pptx_base64') and references prior tools, implying a workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but no competing translation sibling exists.

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

All SlideForge toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct phase or responsibility: browse_catalog for exploration, plan_slide for pre-render planning, create_slide/create_deck for single vs multi-slide generation, upload_asset for asset intake, translate_deck for translation, and manage_account for account/job operations. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (browse_catalog, create_deck, create_slide, manage_account, plan_slide, translate_deck, upload_asset). This uniform convention makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools provide a well-scoped coverage of the PowerPoint generation workflow—from browsing and planning to creating, asset management, translation, and account control—without unnecessary duplication or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: exploration (browse_catalog), planning (plan_slide), single/multi-slide creation (create_slide/create_deck), asset upload/generation (upload_asset), translation (translate_deck), and account/job management including deletion and webhooks (manage_account). No obvious dead ends or missing operations.

Resources