List all slide presentations (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote). Use this when asked to list, find, or search presentations, decks, or slideshows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 50) | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| server_id | No | Filter by server ID |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'List all' but the schema includes limit/offset, implying paginated results, so the phrase 'all' is misleading. It also fails to mention that results may be filtered by server_id or that pagination is needed to retrieve everything.
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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action and resource, and the second adds usage context. No wasted words or redundant 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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and when to use it, which is adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks any mention of pagination behavior or return format, and the 'all' phrasing conflicts with the schema's limit/offset parameters, leaving some gaps in completeness.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema is exhaustive.
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 ('List'), the resource ('slide presentations'), and includes helpful synonyms (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_documents or list_sheets by specifically targeting presentations/decks/slideshows.
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 explicitly says 'Use this when asked to list, find, or search presentations, decks, or slideshows,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_slide_presentation for a single item), but the context makes the intended usage unambiguous.
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.