PptxGenJS MCP Server

add_shape

Add geometric shapes to any slide with full control over position, size, and styling. Supports rectangles, circles, triangles, and more.

Instructions

Add a shape to a slide (rectangle, circle, triangle, etc.)

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": {
      "presentationId": "<presentationId>",
      "slideNumber": "<slideNumber>",
      "shape": "<shape>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "w": "<w>",
      "h": "<h>"
    },
    "name": "add_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`h`	Yes	Height in inches
`w`	Yes	Width in inches
`x`	Yes	X position in inches
`y`	Yes	Y position in inches
`fill`	No	Fill color (hex format)
`line`	No	Line color (hex format)
`shape`	Yes	Shape type (e.g., 'rect', 'ellipse', 'roundRect', 'triangle')
`lineSize`	No	Line thickness in points
`slideNumber`	Yes	Slide number (1-based index)
`presentationId`	Yes	The ID of the presentation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that a shape is added, but not behavioral details such as whether it modifies the slide in-place, what the return value is, or any permissions/effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the core function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema is rich and covers all parameters, making the tool minimally invocable. However, the description lacks any mention of output, default behaviors, or usage timing. For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds slight value by giving natural-language shape examples (rectangle, circle) but does not enrich the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states the action (add) and resource (shape to a slide) with explicit shape examples (rectangle, circle, triangle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_text or add_image.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where add_image/add_text might be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server