ChatPPT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

element_create

Creates one or more elements—text boxes, shapes, lines, tables, charts, or images—on a specified slide in a single batch operation, so you can build slide content in one call.

Instructions

Create one or multiple elements (text boxes, shapes, lines, tables, charts, or images) on a slide in a single batch operation.

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>",
      "slideId": "<slideId>",
      "elements": "<elements>"
    },
    "name": "element_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deckId`	Yes	Stable ID of the presentation deck
`slideId`	Yes	Stable ID of the slide
`elements`	Yes	Array of element definitions to create in batch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the batch nature ('single batch operation'), which is meaningful. However, it omits whether a batch is atomic, whether returned element IDs are provided, permission requirements, and any limits on batch size.

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 action front-loaded and no redundant wording. Nothing in it is filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about failure behavior, atomicity, and what happens to the created elements. It adequately conveys what is created but leaves behavioral completeness thin.

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%, so every parameter and nested element field is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's kind list mirrors the schema enum rather than adding new meaning, and it says nothing about the element-object structure.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create one or multiple elements') and enumerates the supported kinds (text boxes, shapes, lines, tables, charts, images). It is clearly distinguishable from element_update and element_delete by the create verb, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (an existing deck and slide), and no mention of alternatives such as element_update for modify-after-create. The reader must infer usage entirely.

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