WPS Office MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wps_ppt_get_slide_title

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the title of any slide in an active WPS Presentation by providing its slide index (starting from 1). Use this to inspect or extract slide titles.

Instructions

获取指定幻灯片的标题。

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_title"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slideIndex`	Yes	幻灯片索引（从1开始）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-hardened.1Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling, return value format, or edge cases (e.g., missing title). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.

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 a single, direct sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise for a simple getter operation.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and the description is adequate for basic use. However, it does not clarify which presentation it targets or what is returned if the slide lacks a title, leaving minor gaps. Given the availability of sibling tools that might overlap, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (slideIndex is fully described as a 1-based number). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the verb 'get' and the resource 'title of a slide' clearly, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wps_ppt_get_slide_count or wps_ppt_get_slide_notes. However, it does not specify which presentation it operates on (active vs. specified), which is a minor ambiguity given the sibling wps_ppt_get_open_presentations exists.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wps_ppt_get_slide_info, which might also return the title. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or preferred use cases, 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.