pptx-mcp

Make a shareable text preview

pptx_web_preview

Generate a self-contained HTML preview of the first five PowerPoint slides as text cards from a local file or URL, ready to share with others.

Instructions

Writes a self-contained HTML page previewing the first 5 slides as text cards, ready to share.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "pptx_web_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output`	No	Where to write the .html (default: returned inline)
`source`	Yes	Local path or http(s) URL of a .pptx file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal two real traits: the tool writes to disk (a mutation side effect) and the preview is truncated to the first 5 slides, which matters for correctness. It omits overwrite behavior, whether an http(s) source is fetched over the network, and any path/permission constraints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and the output artifact front-loaded and no filler. It is dense but every clause adds information; only the sharing angle is slightly redundant.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is produced (self-contained HTML, text cards, 5-slide cap) and the side effect of writing. The remaining gaps are edge-case behaviors (overwrite, remote fetch) rather than anything an agent needs to invoke it.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the inline-vs-file default for output. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and artifact (writes a self-contained HTML page previewing slides as text cards) and pins the scope to the first 5 slides. It clearly differs in kind from pptx_outline and pptx_thumbnail, though it never names those siblings or contrasts against them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Ready to share" hints at the sharing/preview use case, and "first 5 slides" implies a quick-look scenario, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over pptx_outline or pptx_thumbnail. The routing must be inferred from the artifact type.

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

Deploy Server