google-slides-mcp

prune_parked_slides

Remove all hidden or skipped slides from a Google Slides presentation as a final cleanup step after deck assembly.

Instructions

Delete every parked (hidden/skipped) slide — final cleanup. (<=2 API calls.)

Removes ALL slides currently marked skipped, so use it deliberately as the last step once the deck is assembled.

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>"
    },
    "name": "prune_parked_slides"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`presentation_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses destructive behavior ('Delete'), scopes to parked slides, and even notes API call limit (<=2). This gives good transparency beyond just the 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 extremely concise: two short sentences with a parenthetical clarification and a usage note, all front-loaded with the core action.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers what, when, and performance for a simple destroy operation. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. The contextual info is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With only one parameter (presentation_id) and 0% schema coverage, the description does not elaborate on the parameter. However, the parameter's meaning is clear from context (the deck to clean up) and the tool's purpose.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('every parked slide'), clearly defining the action. It also distinguishes from siblings like unpark_slides by stating it's a 'final cleanup' step.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says to use it 'as the last step once the deck is assembled,' providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the intent is unambiguous.

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