Skip to main content
Glama
Alieforwang

xunfeiPpt MCP Server

by Alieforwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_full_ppt_workflow

Creates a full PowerPoint presentation by analyzing requirements, selecting templates, generating outlines, creating slides, and tracking progress via ReACT.

Instructions

        ReACT模式完整PPT生成工作流 - 智能代理推荐使用

        这是一个高级工作流工具，支持Reasoning and Acting (ReACT) 模式，AI代理可以按以下步骤执行完整的PPT生成流程：

        🧠 THINK (思考阶段)：
        - 分析用户的PPT需求和主题
        - 确定适合的PPT风格和行业类别
        - 规划内容结构和要点

        🎯 ACT (行动阶段)：
        1. 调用 get_theme_list 获取适合的PPT模板
        2. 调用 create_outline 生成结构化大纲
        3. 调用 create_ppt_by_outline 基于大纲生成PPT
        4. 调用 get_task_progress 监控生成进度

        👁️ OBSERVE (观察阶段)：
        - 检查每步的执行结果
        - 验证模板选择的合理性
        - 确认大纲内容的完整性
        - 监控PPT生成状态直到完成

        🔄 ITERATE (迭代优化)：
        - 根据结果调整参数
        - 必要时重新选择模板或修改大纲
        - 确保最终输出质量

        使用建议：
        - 适合需要完整PPT生成流程的复杂任务
        - 支持自动错误处理和重试机制
        - 提供详细的执行过程和结果反馈
        - 可根据用户需求灵活调整参数

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesPPT主题或题目，描述要生成的PPT内容
authorNoPPT作者名称AI助手
industryNo所属行业或领域，如：教育培训、科技互联网、金融、医疗等通用
enable_notesNo是否生成演讲备注
requirementsNo具体要求和细节，如：目标受众、内容重点、风格偏好等
enable_searchNo是否联网搜索补充内容
enable_figuresNo是否启用自动配图功能
style_preferenceNoPPT风格偏好，如：简约、商务、科技、教育等简约

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions automatic error handling, retry, and detailed feedback, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, how it interacts with the mentioned sibling tools, or any permission or rate-limit considerations. Critical behavioral traits remain unspecified.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely long, repetitive, and padded with emojis and generic process descriptions (THINK, ACT, OBSERVE, ITERATE). Many sentences do not add actionable value beyond restating common agent behaviors. It is not front-loaded with a clear single-sentence purpose, and the bulk could be trimmed significantly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high complexity (8 parameters, workflow orchestrating multiple sibling tools, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify what calling this tool actually does versus invoking the individual tools, what the return value is, or how the workflow is actually executed. Key information an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only vaguely references flexible parameter adjustment. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it is a complete PPT generation workflow using ReACT mode, which conveys the general purpose. However, it reads more like an instruction set for the agent to call other tools rather than a direct statement of what this tool itself does (e.g., whether it orchestrates automatically or returns a plan). The lack of a specific verb and the ambiguity about its own action make it vague despite naming sibling tools.

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?

It says it is suitable for complex tasks requiring a complete PPT generation process and mentions flexibility with parameters. There is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives like create_ppt_task or create_outline. The usage context is implied but not fully developed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools