ChatPPT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

slide_duplicate

Duplicate an existing slide within a presentation deck and assign new stable IDs to the copied slide and its elements. Specify an optional target position to control where the copy appears.

Instructions

Duplicate an existing slide in a presentation deck, generating new stable IDs for the slide and all duplicated elements.

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>"
    },
    "name": "slide_duplicate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deckId`	Yes	Stable ID of the presentation deck
`slideId`	Yes	Stable ID of the slide to duplicate
`targetPosition`	No	Optional 0-based target index placement for the duplicated slide

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavior burden and does add one genuinely useful fact: new stable IDs are generated for the slide and every duplicated element. It says nothing about permissions, whether the copy is appended by default or what happens when targetPosition is omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is arguably slightly too tight given what it leaves unsaid, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core effect but omits the default placement behavior and what the caller gets back (the new slide's ID). That leaves gaps an agent would need to fill by trial.

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 deckId, slideId and targetPosition are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about targetPosition, such as its default or how indices shift after insertion.

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 ('Duplicate an existing slide in a presentation deck'), which is precise about what happens. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, slide_create, so an agent still has to infer which one to reach for.

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 guidance on when to duplicate versus creating a new slide with slide_create, no prerequisite or permission notes, and no mention of how this interacts with slide_move or targetPosition. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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