google-slides-mcp

insert_text

Inserts text into a shape or table cell at a specified character index in a Google Slide.

Instructions

Insert text into a shape or table cell at a character index. (1 API call.)

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": {
      "presentation_id": "<presentation_id>",
      "element_id": "<element_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "insert_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`presentation_id`	Yes
`element_id`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`index`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions '1 API call' for cost awareness but omits details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or behavior when index is out of range. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, front-loading the key action and including an efficiency note. Every word is essential, no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify how this tool fits with siblings, or prerequisites like the shape needing to exist. It covers the primary capability but leaves gaps in usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that text is inserted into a shape or table cell, but does not explain individual parameters like element_id or index (e.g., 0-based). This adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Insert' and resource 'text into a shape or table cell', and adds precision with 'at a character index'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_element_text or replace_all_text.

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 like set_element_text or replace_all_text. It lacks context for decision-making.

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