Save a presentation deck and get a shareable URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | HTML content to host | |
| title | Yes | Title for the document |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| title | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the output behavior (returning a shareable URL) beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate the operation is non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the description's addition is useful but not extensive.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and result efficiently.
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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is usage guidance, which is already scored separately.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both 'html' and 'title' parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 action ('Save'), the resource ('presentation deck'), and the outcome ('shareable URL'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_status. It could more explicitly mention the hosting aspect, but the title annotation 'Host HTML' reinforces the intent.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use save_deck versus alternatives like generate_deck or create_template. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools that should be preferred in specific scenarios.
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.