PptxGenJS MCP Server

save_presentation

Save a presentation to a file and get the full path where it was stored.

Instructions

Save the presentation to a file. Returns the full path where the file was saved.

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>",
      "outputPath": "<outputPath>"
    },
    "name": "save_presentation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`outputPath`	Yes	Output file path (e.g., './output/presentation.pptx')
`presentationId`	Yes	The ID of the presentation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return value ('Returns the full path'), but does not state important traits such as whether the file is overwritten, whether directories are created, or whether the presentation must already exist. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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, clear sentence that states the purpose and a key outcome. Every word contributes value; there is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with two fully documented parameters and a straightforward return value, the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks information about overwrite behavior and file format, which could be important for an agent. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (presentationId, outputPath), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Save the presentation to a file.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing a finalizing action rather than content creation or management, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is used after a presentation has been created and edited, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'create_presentation' or 'list_presentations.' No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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

Deploy Server