Append one or more slides to an existing presentation (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Presentation ID | |
| slide | No | Single slide to append | |
| slides | No | Array of slides to append | |
| position | No | 0-based position to insert at (appends to end if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether existing slides are affected, how position is handled, permission requirements, return values, or the non-destructive nature of appending. Significant behavioral context is missing.
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 that efficiently states the action and resource. Parenthetical synonyms add helpful context without unnecessary verbosity. 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?
With 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to choose between slide vs slides, the semantics of the position parameter, what the function returns/doesn't return, or any edge cases. The description is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
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 documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely restating that one or more slides can be appended. It does not clarify the distinction between using 'slide' vs 'slides' or the position parameter's behavior.
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 tool appends slides to an existing presentation, with a specific verb (append) and resource (slides/presentation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_slide_presentation by emphasizing 'existing,' making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage for adding slides to an existing presentation, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like create_slide_presentation for new presentations or update_slide_presentation for modifying existing slides. The context is inferred rather than stated.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: documents, sheets, slides, and servers. Even similar operations like update_sheet and update_sheet_tab are clearly separated by scope (workbook vs tab).
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_document, delete_sheet_tab, list_slides), but there are minor deviations: 'append_to_document' vs 'append_rows'/'append_slides', and 'create_slide_presentation' vs 'list_slides' use inconsistent naming lengths and pluralization.
With 23 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3–15 range but reasonable for covering three full document-type lifecycles (documents, spreadsheets, presentations) plus server listing. No tool feels redundant.
The server provides create, read, update, delete, list, and append operations for documents, sheets, and presentations, including tab-level management for spreadsheets. Minor gaps exist like no individual slide update or search across all resource types, but the core workflows are well-covered.