Converts reference PowerPoint files into restricted, reusable HTML contract subsets, with optional page or element selection; saves output and inlines small fragments for reuse.
把参考 pptx 逆转为受限 HTML（契约子集）供复用。pages/elements 缺省=全逆转，给其一即选择性逆转；产物落盘，片段不大于 12KB 时内联回传。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | ||
| out_dir | Yes | ||
| elements | No | ||
| pptx_path | Yes | ||
| include_html | No | auto | |
| placeholder_text | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does disclose important behavior: output is written to disk, and fragments no larger than 12KB are returned inline. It does not discuss overwrite behavior, permissions, or whether out_dir contents may be replaced, which matters for a file-writing tool.
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 compact and front-loaded, covering the core operation, selection behavior, and output handling in two sentences. The term "契约子集" is somewhat opaque, but there is no wasted text.
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?
The core operation and output behavior are adequately described, and an output schema exists for return values. Still, for a six-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the missing explanations for include_html and placeholder_text leave meaningful gaps.
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 compensate. It clarifies pages/elements selection semantics, but leaves include_html (default "auto") and placeholder_text entirely unexplained, and does not add detail for pptx_path or out_dir beyond their names.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: reverse a reference pptx into restricted HTML (a contract subset) for reuse. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like ppt_outline and validate_html, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
It explains that omitting pages/elements performs a full reversal while supplying one enables selective reversal, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus convert_html, validate_html, or get_contract.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.