Extract content from PowerPoint .pptx files as Markdown, with one section per slide, bullets, and speaker notes. Provides structured text for AI agents.
Extract a presentation (.pptx, local path) as Markdown – one section per slide, bullets and speaker notes included. $0.01.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| output | No | json | |
| output_path | No | ||
| include_notes | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure, but it omits the schema's default output of 'json' and the effect of output_path, and it does not mention idempotency or file-writing behavior. The phrase 'as Markdown' also conflicts with the default 'json' output, making behavior ambiguous.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler; every element, including the price, contributes useful information.
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?
Despite five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not clarify return format, output destination, or the idempotency_key. An agent cannot reliably predict behavior when defaults or optional parameters are used.
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 explain the parameters. It adds meaning for file ('local path', .pptx) and include_notes ('speaker notes included'), but it leaves output, output_path, and idempotency_key unexplained.
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 names a specific verb ('Extract'), a precise resource ('.pptx, local path'), and the output format (Markdown), and it distinguishes the tool from sibling converters like docx_to_markdown and url_to_markdown by extension and local-path scope.
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 '.pptx, local path' qualifier gives clear context for when to choose this tool over sibling format converters and URL-based tools, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.