Skip to main content
Glama

tosea_generate_outline

Generate structured outlines for existing presentations to organize content and prepare for slide creation.

Instructions

Queue outline generation for an existing presentation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
presentation_idYes
instructionNo
render_providerNo

Implementation Reference

  • The tool handler for 'tosea_generate_outline' which calls the client's generateOutline method.
    async ({ presentation_id, instruction, render_provider }) => {
      try {
        return asToolResult(
          await client.generateOutline({
            presentationId: presentation_id,
            instruction,
            renderProvider: render_provider
          })
        );
      } catch (error) {
        throw wrapToolError(error);
      }
  • src/tools.ts:156-163 (registration)
    Registration of the 'tosea_generate_outline' tool including its input schema.
    server.tool(
      "tosea_generate_outline",
      "Queue outline generation for an existing presentation.",
      {
        presentation_id: z.string().uuid(),
        instruction: z.string().default(""),
        render_provider: z.string().optional()
      },
  • The client implementation that performs the actual network request to the Tosea API.
    async generateOutline(input: {
      presentationId: string;
      instruction?: string | undefined;
      renderProvider?: string | undefined;
    }): Promise<ApiEnvelope<Record<string, unknown>>> {
      return this.request("/outline-generate", {
        method: "POST",
        body: {
          presentation_id: input.presentationId,
          instruction: input.instruction ?? "",
          render_provider: input.renderProvider ?? undefined
        },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Queue outline generation,' which implies an asynchronous or batch operation. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, job status, or what 'queue' entails (e.g., is it immediate or delayed?), making behavioral traits unclear.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the queuing nature more explicitly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral aspects like async processing, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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 but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'presentation_id', 'instruction', or 'render_provider' mean, their formats, or how they affect the outline generation, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 clearly states the action ('Queue outline generation') and target resource ('for an existing presentation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tosea_edit_outline_page' or 'tosea_edit_slide_page', which might involve similar presentation operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance by implying usage when an outline needs to be generated for an existing presentation, but it offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives compared to siblings like 'tosea_edit_outline_page'. This leaves gaps in usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ToseaAI/mcp-ToseaAI'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server