Retrieve details of the currently open WPS Presentation document. Use this tool to inspect the active presentation's information for read-only monitoring or validation.
获取当前打开的WPS演示文稿信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-hardened.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a restatement of the function, such as behavior when no presentation is open, error handling, or any side effects. Since the description carries no extra value beyond the annotations, it scores low on this dimension.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and immediately conveys the core function. There is no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a tool with no output schema and no parameters. While it conveys the core purpose, it does not specify what information is returned (e.g., presentation name, slide count, metadata). Given the sibling tools and the getter nature, an agent might need more detail to know if this tool satisfies their need, especially since the output schema is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, the description is not required to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids irrelevant information. The description does not mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves information about the currently open WPS presentation, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like wps_ppt_get_open_presentations (which lists all presentations) and wps_ppt_get_slide_count (which targets slides). However, the vague term '信息' (information) leaves the exact scope of the return value unspecified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single active presentation or when to prefer it over wps_ppt_get_open_presentations. There is no exclusion or condition stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.