google-slides-mcp

update_transform

Apply an affine transformation (scale, shear, translate) to a slide element. Supports absolute or relative mode.

Instructions

Apply a raw AffineTransform to an element. (1 API call.)

Args: presentation_id: The presentation ID. element_id: The page element ID. transform: An AffineTransform dict (scaleX, scaleY, shearX, shearY, translateX, translateY, unit). unit may be EMU or PT. mode: ABSOLUTE (replace) or RELATIVE (multiply with existing).

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>",
      "transform": "<transform>"
    },
    "name": "update_transform"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`presentation_id`	Yes
`element_id`	Yes
`transform`	Yes
`mode`	No	ABSOLUTE or RELATIVE	ABSOLUTE

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses it is 1 API call and the transform modes (absolute/relative), but does not detail side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise and well-structured with the main action first, followed by args. Minor verbosity in the Args block but overall efficient.

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?

Covers core purpose and parameters adequately. Output schema exists but description does not mention return values. Still, it is sufficient for a mutation tool with clear input.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, but description compensates by detailing the AffineTransform fields (scaleX, scaleY, etc.) and the mode parameter values (ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE).

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?

Clearly states 'Apply a raw AffineTransform to an element', specifying the action and resource. The sibling tools do not directly perform affine transforms, so it is distinct.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description implies usage for applying raw transforms but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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