Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WPS Office MCP

WPS Office MCP

by ZNaiGaomu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

wps_ppt_get_slide_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the speaker notes for a specific slide by its index. Enter the slide number to read its notes content.

Instructions

获取指定幻灯片的备注内容。

使用场景：

  • "查看第3页的备注"

  • "读取演讲备注"

  • "这页有什么备注"

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": {
      "slideIndex": "<slideIndex>"
    },
    "name": "wps_ppt_get_slide_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slideIndexYes幻灯片索引（从1开始）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-hardened.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description doesn't mention return behavior, empty-notes handling, or that it targets the active presentation, so it provides no additional transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact: one main clause followed by three short example queries. It's front-loaded and every line contributes value.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema/annotations cover most operational basics, but the description omits that it operates on the active presentation and what happens if the slide has no notes. With no output schema, a bit more context would make it complete.

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% for the single parameter slideIndex, including the 1-based start note. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('指定幻灯片的备注内容'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle counts, titles, info, or textboxes. An agent can tell this tool is for reading slide notes.

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 provides concrete usage scenarios ('查看第3页的备注', '读取演讲备注', '这页有什么备注') that signal when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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