slides_get_presentationFetches a summary of a Google Slides presentation, including the title and each slide's object ID and text, so you can inspect slide content.
Summarize a presentation: title and each slide's object id and text.
At most 100 slides and 2000 characters per slide are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| presentation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail by disclosing truncation limits: at most 100 slides and 2000 characters per slide.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the important return limits immediately after. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not document return structure, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is that the sole required parameter, presentation_id, is not described at all.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented presentation_id parameter. It does not explain the ID format, where to obtain it, or any constraints beyond implying it identifies a presentation.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Summarize a presentation" with title, slide object ids, and text. It is clearly distinct from the thumbnail sibling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as slides_get_thumbnail or docs_get_document. The use case is somewhat implied by "Summarize a presentation," but no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.