Retrieve detailed metadata for a single slide, including shape IDs, names, types, placeholder status, position, size in inches, and text or image details.
Return detailed information about one slide.
Includes each shape's id, name, type, placeholder status, position and size (in inches), plus text and image metadata when present.
Args: index: Zero-based index of the slide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work by enumerating exactly what is returned: shape id, name, type, placeholder status, position and size in inches, plus text and image metadata. It stops short of stating that the call is non-mutating and says nothing about out-of-range index behavior.
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 return payload is stated up front, followed by a tight Args block, with no filler. The shape-attribute sentence is dense but every element listed is genuinely informative for an inspect tool.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by describing the return contents in detail for a one-parameter read tool. The remaining gap is operational: no mention of error behavior for invalid indices or the link to list_slides for discovering indices.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Index', so the description carries the meaning itself with 'Zero-based index of the slide' and an explicit Args block. That fully specifies the single parameter's semantics, though it omits valid range and how indices are discovered.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return detailed information about one slide') and the 'one slide' scope implicitly distinguishes it from list_slides. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling tool or explicitly contrasts itself with list_slides.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the read/inspect counterpart to list_slides, and nothing tells it how to obtain a valid index or what to do when inspection of many slides is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.