ChatPPT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

deck_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete a presentation deck and its underlying PowerPoint file by deck ID to remove unwanted or obsolete content.

Instructions

Permanently delete a presentation deck and its underlying PowerPoint file.

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": {
      "deckId": "<deckId>"
    },
    "name": "deck_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deckId`	Yes	Stable ID of the deck to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a write/destroy operation, and the description goes beyond it by disclosing what actually gets destroyed: the deck plus its underlying PowerPoint file. It does not mention whether contained slides/elements are also removed, whether confirmation or elevated permissions are required, or whether the operation can be undone.

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?

A single sentence with the destructive scope ('Permanently') and the affected artifacts front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already declare destructiveness, the description supplies the key missing fact — that the backing PowerPoint file is also removed. Only cascade behavior on child slides/elements is left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 100% and the single deckId parameter is documented in the schema as the stable ID of the deck to delete. The description adds no format, sourcing, or identifier-resolution detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('delete a presentation deck') and adds scope detail ('its underlying PowerPoint file'), which distinguishes it from the granular element_delete/slide_delete siblings. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 word 'Permanently' implies caution, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of when a narrower delete (slide_delete, element_delete) would be preferred. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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