keynote-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

duplicate_slide

Create a copy of a specific slide in a Keynote presentation to reuse content or modify layouts without starting from scratch.

Instructions

Duplicate a slide

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slide_number": "<slide_number>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_slide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doc_name`	No	Document name (optional, defaults to front document)
`slide_number`	Yes	Slide number to duplicate
`new_position`	No	New position (optional, 0 = append at end)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('duplicate') but doesn't mention whether this is a mutation, what permissions are needed, if it's reversible, or how it affects the presentation structure. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies content.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how duplication interacts with slide numbering. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a slide is duplicated, which is redundant with the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('duplicate') and resource ('a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_slide' or 'move_slide' that also manipulate slides, missing explicit distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_slide' or 'move_slide'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an open presentation, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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