Skip to main content
Glama
SVerITG

Metis

by SVerITG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Metis — Ingest Office Document

ingest_office_document

Reads a PowerPoint deck into Metis's memory with provenance back to the file, so its content can be recalled and cross-referenced later.

Instructions

Read a PowerPoint deck into Metis's memory, with provenance back to the file.

Stores the deck's content so it can be recalled and cross-referenced later —
which is what closes the round trip: a deck edited in PowerPoint becomes
something Metis knows about again.

Excel files are NOT ingested. Their structure can be read (see
read_office_document) but their contents must not enter memory — they are data,
not authored content, and may hold patient records.

Args:
    path: Path to a .pptx file.
    project_id: Optional project to attach it to.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
project_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a persistent write into memory, storing content plus provenance for later recall. It also flags a hard safety boundary (patient-record data must never be ingested). It stops short of stating idempotency, what happens on re-ingesting the same deck, or failure behavior for non-.pptx input.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the Excel exclusion placed before the Args block where it matters most. The middle paragraph ("which is what closes the round trip…") is mildly rhetorical and could be trimmed without losing information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema already documenting returns, the description supplies the storage semantics, the provenance guarantee, and the data-safety restriction an agent needs. Remaining gaps (duplicate handling, path resolution, error cases) are real but secondary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path is constrained to a ".pptx file" (a format restriction absent from the schema) and project_id is explained as an optional project attachment. It does not clarify whether path is absolute, relative, or workspace-scoped.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read a PowerPoint deck into Metis's memory") and immediately disambiguates the misleadingly broad tool name by restricting scope to PowerPoint decks only. It also names the sibling it is not (read_office_document) so an agent can route without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-not ("Excel files are NOT ingested"), the reason (data not authored content, may hold patient records), and the named alternative to use instead (read_office_document). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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