KitchenSink4PPT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

apply_edits

Batch-apply multiple edits to a PowerPoint file with one atomic save, resolving all anchors before mutating and rejecting stale ones to avoid partial changes. Use for changes needing two or more edits.

Instructions

Batch editor: many edits, one lock, one backup, one atomic save. Each edit is {"op": name, ...params} addressed by a view "anchor" (from get_presentation_view) or explicit {"slide", "shape"/"table"} keys. Ops: set_text, set_shape (graphics pack), set_table_cells (tables-charts pack), search_and_replace, set_placeholder_text, format_text (graphics pack), delete_shape (graphics pack). Every location is resolved BEFORE anything mutates; any stale anchor refuses the whole batch listing every failed index, and result.changed maps op index to outcome. These ops EDIT existing content; nothing here inserts shapes, tables, or slides. Creation tools live in the packs (enable_tools). atomic must stay True: v1 has no partial-apply mode. Saves atomically with two-slot backup; backup=False skips rotation. Use this when a change needs two or more edits; for a single edit use the standalone tool (set_shape, format_text, set_table_cells, set_placeholder_text, search_and_replace, delete_shape).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`edits`	Yes
`atomic`	No
`backup`	No
`file_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.1Sep 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses one lock, one backup, atomic save, stale-anchor refusal, and result.changed mapping. These behavioral details go well beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation and give the agent an accurate model of what happens during execution.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: core behavior, DSL format, op list, safety constraints, and routing to standalone tools. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

Given the complexity of a batch editor with pack-specific ops and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation model, failure behavior, backup behavior, required atomicity, and single-edit alternatives. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It explains the edit structure, anchor addressing, valid op names, atomic/backup semantics, and result.changed, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Batch editor' and immediately conveys the tool's function: applying many edits atomically to a presentation. It lists the supported ops and explicitly distinguishes itself from creation tools, making its scope unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('needs two or more edits') and when to prefer standalone tools, naming each alternative. It also warns that atomic must stay True and that no partial-apply mode exists, giving clear operational guidance.

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