ppt-mcp

ppt_convert_pdf

Submit a locked workflow to convert PDF files into PowerPoint presentations.

Instructions

Submit the locked high-level workflow after target and options are ready.

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": {
      "route_workflow_id": "<route_workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "ppt_convert_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`route_workflow_id`	Yes
`retain_process_artifacts`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, whether a job is created, whether the workflow is locked or irreversible, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified and relies on undefined jargon. Brevity is not valuable when it sacrifices clarity and actionable information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given an output schema, two parameters, and a pipeline of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in the conversion workflow, prerequisites beyond a vague 'target and options ready', or the meaning of 'locked'. The agent is left to guess.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention route_workflow_id or retain_process_artifacts, nor does 'locked high-level workflow' clearly map to either parameter. The agent receives no meaningful parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the vague phrase 'locked high-level workflow' without stating that this tool converts PPT to PDF or triggers a conversion job. The verb 'Submit' is present, but the resource is undefined and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like create_job or submit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'after target and options are ready' provides a sequencing hint, implying this tool should be used after set_conversion_target and set_route_options. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server