Cross-Platform PowerPoint MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves text content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or whether it works on closed presentations. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose with usage). It's efficient with minimal waste.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read operation), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return value. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values extensively. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, leaving some gaps.

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. It lists both parameters (presentation_id and slide_id) and explains their roles, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID structure) or constraints, partially compensating for the low coverage but not fully.

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's purpose: 'Get all text content in a slide' specifies the verb (get) and resource (text content in a slide). It distinguishes from siblings like get_slides (which lists slides) or update_text (which modifies text), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_slides (for slide metadata) or update_text (for editing). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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