Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ChatPPT

ChatPPT

by ParkerDiamond
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

slide_collection_delete

Destructive

Deletes a slide collection from a presentation deck without removing the slides it references, so you can reorganize collections while keeping slides intact.

Instructions

Delete a slide collection without deleting its referenced slides.

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>",
      "slideCollectionId": "<slideCollectionId>"
    },
    "name": "slide_collection_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckIdYesStable ID of the presentation deck
slideCollectionIdYesStable ID of the slide collection to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the write/irreversible nature is covered. The description adds useful blast-radius context by clarifying that member slides are not destroyed, but it says nothing about what happens to slide ordering, whether the deletion is reversible, or what authorization is needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier is attached directly to the action rather than buried later.

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 two-parameter, non-nested tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and its most important side-effect boundary. Only permission/irreversibility details are absent, which is a modest gap.

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%, with both deckId and slideCollectionId documented as UUIDs in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a slide collection') and immediately bounds the scope by noting referenced slides survive, which distinguishes it from slide_delete. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

The phrase 'without deleting its referenced slides' implies the intended use case (removing a grouping rather than the content), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g. required permissions, whether the collection must be empty).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools