iWork Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Keynote: apply design

keynote_apply_design

Destructive

Make a deck look designed: the kit's theme (optional), then every slide's title and body fonts (Arabic-aware), sizes from a type scale, and colours from a contrast-checked palette.

Instructions

Make a deck look designed: the kit's theme (optional), then every slide's title and body fonts (Arabic-aware), sizes from a type scale, and colours from a contrast-checked palette. kit = a name from iwork_list_design_kits or your own {"fonts": {...}, "colors": {...}}. Text is verified unchanged. dry_run=true previews the change on a copy without touching the file. Use to restyle a whole deck from a kit. For one text item use keynote_format_text. Preview with dry_run, then run keynote_review_deck.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kit`	No	A design kit: a name from iwork_list_design_kits (preset or saved, e.g. "executive", "Acme") or your own {"fonts": {...}, "colors": {"title": "#RRGGBB", ...}}. Contrast is checked.	executive
`path`	Yes	Path to the .key deck (absolute, or starting with ~).
`dry_run`	No	true = make the change on a throwaway copy, run every check, and return what would change; the file itself is not touched. Use it before broad or risky edits and show the user.
`set_theme`	No	true = also switch to the kit's theme first.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.1Oct 13, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / kit / description

Previous value: -"A design kit: a name from iwork_list_design_kits (preset or saved, e.g. \"executive\", \"Resal\") or your own {\"fonts\": {...}, \"colors\": {\"title\": \"#RRGGBB\", ...}}. Contrast is checked."New value: +"A design kit: a name from iwork_list_design_kits (preset or saved, e.g. \"executive\", \"Acme\") or your own {\"fonts\": {...}, \"colors\": {\"title\": \"#RRGGBB\", ...}}. Contrast is checked."

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.4.1Oct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description

Added value: +"true = make the change on a throwaway copy, run every check, and return what would change; the file itself is not touched. Use it before broad or risky edits and show the user."

addedInput schema / properties / kit / description

Added value: +"A design kit: a name from iwork_list_design_kits (preset or saved, e.g. \"executive\", \"Resal\") or your own {\"fonts\": {...}, \"colors\": {\"title\": \"#RRGGBB\", ...}}. Contrast is checked."

addedInput schema / properties / path / description

Added value: +"Path to the .key deck (absolute, or starting with ~)."

addedInput schema / properties / set_theme / description

Added value: +"true = also switch to the kit's theme first."

First observedv2.4.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: dry_run makes the change on a throwaway copy without touching the file, contrast is checked on the palette, and text content is verified unchanged. It does not spell out permissions, backup behaviour, or what happens to unlisted styling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome first, then the mechanism, then routing and workflow. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the piped kit example is the only mildly compressible part.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the mutation scope, the kit input format, the safe-preview path, the verification step and the sibling alternative — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so kit, path, dry_run and set_theme are already documented in the schema. The description restates the kit value shape and dry_run copy semantics rather than adding new syntax or edge cases, so baseline 3 is appropriate despite the small overlap being well explained.

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 (apply/restyle) and resource (whole deck's theme, fonts, sizes, colours) and names the sibling it is not: "For one text item use keynote_format_text." An agent can distinguish it from keynote_set_theme, keynote_format_text and numbers_apply_design without opening any schema.

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 ("Use to restyle a whole deck from a kit"), explicit when-not (single text item → keynote_format_text), and a stated workflow (dry_run preview then keynote_review_deck). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server