themes_get
Retrieve specific theme details from ProPresenter presentations by providing the theme ID for automation and control.
Instructions
Get details of a specific theme
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the theme |
Retrieve specific theme details from ProPresenter presentations by providing the theme ID for automation and control.
Get details of a specific theme
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the theme |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'details' include. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or behavioral context. For a tool with no structured metadata, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The ID of the theme'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific theme'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'themes_get_all' or other theme-related tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'themes_get_all' or 'themes_get_slide'. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a single theme by ID, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Marc416/propresenter-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server