Skip to main content
Glama
SujayGG

pf-debate-mcp

by SujayGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_doc

Generate Verbatim-compatible debate speech documents in Word or Google Docs format, with full case files or read-ready speaking versions.

Instructions

Write a speech doc / case / block file. items in order, each one of: {"pocket": "..."} {"hat": "..."} {"block": "..."} (Verbatim headings: Pocket > Hat > Block), {"tag": "..."} (analytic tag, no card), {"text": "..."} (speech prose), {"card": "c12" | "lib:345"} (optionally {"card": id, "tag": "new tag"} to retag a card in the export). format "docx": Verbatim-compatible Word file. format "gdocs": an .html file for Google Docs users (open it, select all, copy, paste into a Google Doc; or upload it to Google Drive and open with Google Docs). version "full" (default): complete cards, the doc you send in the email chain / keep as the file. version "read": read-ready copy to speak from (Rhetorify): each card cut to tag, short cite and only its highlighted words, each hat/block heading marked with its time at wpm, total time on top. Returns the file path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wpmNo
itemsYes
titleYes
formatNodocx
versionNofull
filenameNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / version
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "full",
+  "title": "Version",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / wpm
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 160,
+  "title": "Wpm",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "docx",
+  "title": "Format",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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 well: it explains what the file contains, how each format/version behaves, and that it returns the file path. It stops short of disclosing side effects like overwriting behavior or where the file is written, which is a minor gap for a write operation.

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?

The description is dense but organized: item syntax first, then format options, then version options, then return value. Every sentence adds useful information, though the compact notation may require careful parsing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential call path: how to construct items, what formats/versions do, and what is returned. The main missing piece is behavior around 'filename' and potential overwrites, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'items' array format, including valid dict shapes, verbatim headings, retagging syntax, and the meaning of 'format' and 'version'. It does not explicitly define 'filename' or 'title', though those are relatively self-evident from the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write a speech doc / case / block file.' It then details the item structure, formats, and versions, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like read_speech, cut_card, or caselist_download.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance for formats ('docx' for Verbatim, 'gdocs' for Google Docs users) and versions ('full' for the email-chain file, 'read' for speaking from). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong.

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