Skip to main content
Glama
Arkanji

iWork Studio MCP Server

by Arkanji
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Check text is rendered

iwork_verify_render
Read-onlyIdempotent

Prove written text actually renders: export a Numbers, Keynote, or Pages file to PDF and assert the given text is visible, with an optional page-count check.

Instructions

Export the file to PDF through its app and assert assert_text is visibly rendered. For Arabic, use one word. Use after an important write to prove the text really shows when rendered. To check font, size or colour use iwork_verify_format; to check a deck's whole design use keynote_review_deck.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the .numbers, .key or .pages file (absolute, or starting with ~).
assert_textYesText that must be visibly rendered; for Arabic, one word.
expected_pagesNoExpected page (or slide) count; omit to skip that check.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / assert_text / description
      Added value: +"Text that must be visibly rendered; for Arabic, one word."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_pages / description
      Added value: +"Expected page (or slide) count; omit to skip that check."
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Added value: +"Path to the .numbers, .key or .pages file (absolute, or starting with ~)."
  2. First observedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds the actual mechanism — it exports through the app to PDF — and the Arabic single-word constraint. It does not disclose failure behavior or where the intermediate PDF goes, so it stops short of full transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: action first, constraint second, disambiguation last. No filler, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the return contract need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description covers the mechanism and routing well; only minor gaps remain around failure semantics when the text is not rendered.

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%, and the Arabic-specific guidance in the description merely repeats what the assert_text schema already says. No additional syntax, format, or expected_pages semantics are added, so this sits at the baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: export to PDF and assert `assert_text` is visibly rendered. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from iwork_verify_format (font/size/colour) and keynote_review_deck (whole-deck design).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('after an important write to prove the text really shows when rendered') plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them. An agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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