PowerPoint MCP Server

by atharva-bedekar

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools overlap in functionality; for example, modify_shape explicitly covers move, resize, alignment, and distribution, yet move_shape, resize_shape, align_shapes, and distribute_shapes exist separately. Positioning tools like space_shapes and equalize_sizes also add potential confusion, though detailed descriptions mitigate some ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All 34 tools follow a consistent ppt_ + verb_noun snake_case pattern, with verbs like inspect, modify, create, render, and clear objects. This uniformity makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
With 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold considered 'too many' in the rubric. While the domain is complex, the set feels bloated because several tools (move, resize, align, distribute) are subsumed by modify_shape, increasing selection difficulty without clear benefit.
Completeness2/5
The tools thoroughly cover shape/text manipulation, inspection, and rendering, but lack essential presentation lifecycle operations like creating, deleting, or reordering slides, and do not support creating a new presentation from scratch. These gaps will cause agent failures in common workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that external programs (PowerPoint or LibreOffice) are required, but does not state whether the tool writes files to disk, how existing files are handled, what the return value is, or any potential side effects. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.
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 sentence, which is concise in length. However, it is under-specified rather than effectively concise: it omits essential details about a tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions. The brevity does not earn its place because it fails to communicate the information an agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (six parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, output format, environmental prerequisites, or error handling, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional documentation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must explain parameter semantics. The description only hints at 'single slide' (slide_number) and 'high-resolution' (possibly dpi), but provides no explanation for renderer, output_dir, output_path, or presentation_path. An agent cannot infer the meaning or usage of these parameters from the description.
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 clearly states a specific action: rendering a single slide to a high-resolution PNG. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'ppt_render_presentation' by focusing on a single slide rather than the entire presentation, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.
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 mentions two rendering engines (PowerPoint COM and LibreOffice headless) but provides no guidance on when to use each or why they matter. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ppt_render_presentation, nor does it state any exclusions or requirements for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions preserving typography hierarchy and paragraph/bullet formatting, which is helpful, but it does not explain the exact scaling mechanism (proportional vs delta), how min/max clamps work, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. The parameters suggest multiple modes (scale_factor, font_size_delta, min_pt/max_pt) but the description offers no clarity on their interplay.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise, and front-loads the core action: 'Proportionally scale or adjust font sizes.' No unnecessary words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical operational details, so the conciseness is good but not exemplary.
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 10 parameters, no annotation, and no parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the different scaling modes interplay, what the output schema returns, or what 'strictly preserving' means in practice. An agent cannot safely use this tool correctly without additional information.
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 description coverage is 0% and the tool description mentions none of the 10 parameters. Parameter names like max_pt, scale_factor, and font_size_delta are vaguely suggestive but not explained. The agent is left to guess the meaning and usage of each parameter, especially since some are redundant (min_pt vs min_font_size). The description should at least explain the primary mode of operation.
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 clearly states the action: proportionally scale or adjust font sizes across text-bearing shapes on a slide, while preserving typography hierarchy and formatting. This is specific enough to distinguish from generic text modification tools like ppt_modify_text, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or mention that it focuses solely on font size scaling rather than content changes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exceptions, or sibling tools. An agent has no information about when scaling is appropriate versus using ppt_modify_text or ppt_apply_style.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'identify,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications or whether it has side effects like requiring an open file or heavy computation. The description adds some value by listing the output elements but lacks explicit safety or performance context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. It front-loads the main action and then lists the specific data returned. There is no verbosity or redundancy, though it could be improved with a brief usage hint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (so return format is likely covered), the description fails to explain the parameters, when to use the tool, or any behavioral considerations. Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, one required), the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference about the parameters.
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?
The schema coverage is 0% because the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain what 'slide_number' or 'presentation_path' mean or how they relate to the container analysis. Since the description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text, and it does not, the parameter semantics are entirely unaddressed.
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 clearly states the verb 'identify' with a specific resource: 'logical containers (cards, group boxes) and their contained child elements on a slide.' It also specifies the output elements (bounding boxes, relative child positions, confidence scores), making it distinct from general slide inspection tools. This differentiates it from siblings like ppt_inspect_slide and ppt_analyze_slide_structure by focusing on container hierarchy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There is no mention of when to prefer it over ppt_analyze_slide_structure or other inspection tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool analyzes and returns confidence scores and nesting, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or any limitations or failure modes. For an analysis tool, this is a significant omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the analyzed components. It is efficient and structured, with no wasted words. However, it packs in many terms without elaboration, which slightly reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists and return values are not needed in the description, the description does not explain how to specify the slide or provide enough context for a complex semantic analysis tool. It lacks parameter guidance and usage context, leaving critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'slide_number' (which slide to target) or 'presentation_path' (optional path to an alternative file). The agent receives no semantic meaning for the required parameter, making correct invocation guesswork.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Analyze') on a well-defined resource ('slide structure') and enumerates the semantic elements it covers (shape roles, confidence scores, container nesting). It distinguishes itself from raw inspection tools like ppt_inspect_slide by emphasizing semantic hierarchy and roles, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as ppt_analyze_containers or ppt_inspect_slide. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer its applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool compares and matches shapes with confidence scores, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only nature), performance implications, or how it handles mismatched shapes. The absence of any mutation hint is not sufficient; explicit statements about non-destructiveness are expected for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key behaviors. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could briefly touch on parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the tool exposes five parameters with zero documentation, and the description provides no behavioral or usage context beyond the core purpose. For a comparison tool with matching logic and flags, this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing on parameter semantics and invocation details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It makes no mention of render_diff, match_shapes_flag, or presentation_path, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone, which provides no descriptions. This is a significant gap for a tool with five parameters.
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 clearly states the tool compares geometric, typographic, and semantic layout properties between two slides and matches shapes with confidence scores. This provides a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('two slides') and differentiates from siblings like ppt_inspect_slide or ppt_visual_diff by its focus on layout properties and shape matching.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ppt_visual_diff or ppt_inspect_slide. There is no guidance on conditions that would favor this tool, exclusion criteria, or prerequisites. The usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a deletion action but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether associated text or formatting is also removed, whether the change is automatically saved, or what happens if the shape_id does not exist). The term 'cleanly' hints at some behavior but is undefined. For a destructive tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is arguably concise in length. However, it is under-specified for a destructive operation with undocumented parameters. It does not waste words, but it also does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the tool's name. The brevity is acceptable but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a destructive tool with no annotations, an existing output schema (though not detailed in the prompt), and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain error handling, side effects, or any constraints (e.g., whether the shape must be on the slide). While the output schema may cover return values, the description should still provide operational context, which it fails to do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only implies that a 'slide' and 'shape' are involved, but does not explain that 'slide_number' identifies the slide, 'shape_id' identifies the shape, or that 'presentation_path' is optional. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.
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 clearly identifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a shape from a slide', which distinguishes it from sibling operations like ppt_modify_shape, ppt_copy_shape, and ppt_move_shape. The word 'cleanly' is vague but does not obscure the core purpose. It could be more specific about what 'cleanly' entails, but the action is unambiguous.
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 when a shape should be permanently removed rather than hidden or modified. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the shape must exist) or any conditions that would make deletion inappropriate. No exclusions or routing cues are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses that it preserves surrounding rich-text typography while modifying text, and lists supported font-sizing modes. However, it does not mention mutation side-effects, whether changes are reversible, or behavior on locked/read-only slides. Overall it gives some transparency but leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and covers core functionality without verbosity. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then lists capabilities. No filler or redundant phrases. It is appropriately concise for the tool's scope, though a structured list could improve scannability.
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 the tool has 27 parameters, a 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not clarify which parameters are mutually exclusive, which apply to runs vs paragraphs, or how they compose. The output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not reference it. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional context.
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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of any of the 27 parameters. It references a few (font_size_delta, font_size_scale, min_font_size, max_font_size) by name but does not clarify semantics, units, or relationships (e.g., the difference between font_size, font_size_pt, and font_size_delta). Agents would have no insight beyond parameter names.
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 clearly states the tool updates text content and formatting in a text frame, naming specific actions (replacing text, adjusting formatting) and parameters (font_size_delta, etc.). It is distinguishable from siblings like ppt_inspect_text or ppt_modify_shape, though it does not explicitly contrast with ppt_batch_modify_text.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that ppt_batch_modify_text should be used for multiple shapes, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., the shape must be a text frame). The description implies a single text frame operation but does not explicitly exclude batch use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'deterministically' but does not clarify whether it overwrites existing child positions, whether it preserves styles, whether it requires the container to exist, or what the side effects are. It does not mention any permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. The mutation effect is implied but not detailed, leaving the agent blind to important consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It avoids redundant words and is appropriately rated for its brevity. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of critical details, so while the structure is clean, the content is too sparse to fully support the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which we cannot see), the description should cover more operational context: what happens to the container's layout, whether it returns a success indicator, and how it interacts with the presentation lifecycle. The description only gives a high-level intent and leaves most execution details undefined. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies a slide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only alludes to 'padding' and 'vertical gaps' which map to padding_inches and item_spacing_inches, but it does not mention the required parameters slide_number or container_id, nor presentation_path. Without any parameter documentation in the schema or description, an agent cannot confidently fill in the arguments, especially the core ones.
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 a specific action ('stack and organize all child elements vertically inside a container') with a clear resource. It implies it handles layout, which distinguishes it from siblings like ppt_move_container (relocating container) or ppt_align_shapes (aligning shapes), but it does not explicitly name any sibling or highlight the contrast. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but lacks explicit differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For instance, it does not say 'use this to reflow a container's children' or that it is unsuitable for containers with complex nested structures. An agent would have to infer usage from the vague phrase 'deterministically stack', which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey safety and side effects. It only mentions the action and units, but does not disclose that this modifies shape positions, whether it affects other properties, if it is destructive, or what happens if shapes are not truly adjacent. Minimal behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain how to identify shapes, what 'adjacent' means, how direction is used, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention slide_number, shape_ids, gap_inches, direction, or presentation_path at all. An agent cannot infer how to fill these fields from the description alone.
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 precisely states the action ('set an exact fixed gap'), the resource ('shapes'), and the axis ('horizontally or vertically'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like align_shapes and distribute_shapes by focusing on fixed spacing rather than alignment or distribution.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like distribute_shapes or equalize_sizes. The description does not mention exclusions or conditions that would lead an agent to pick this over a sibling. The distinction is only implied by 'exact fixed gap', which is not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'without manual coordinate arithmetic', implying automatic layout, but does not state that the tool modifies the slide by adding multiple shapes, any side effects, prerequisites (like an open presentation), or limitations. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise and free of redundancy, though it could have been structured to include more detail without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 15 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how required parameters like slide_number and steps are used, what output the tool produces (though output schema exists, so that is partially covered), or any operational context. An agent would likely struggle to know what values to supply for many parameters.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 15 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions no parameters at all; it does not explain what 'steps' means, what 'direction' controls, or what 'style_preset' offers. It adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema, which is inadequate given the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 clearly states the tool creates a multi-step flow or process diagram with aligned nodes, connecting arrows, and typography presets. It specifies a concrete verb ('Create') and resource, and its emphasis on automatic alignment distinguishes it from siblings like ppt_align_shapes or ppt_modify_shape.
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. It does not mention any specific use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer this over manually placing shapes with ppt_modify_shape).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'absolute width/height in inches' and 'scaling multipliers' but does not explain how these interact (e.g., precedence when both are provided), whether the operation is reversible, if it modifies the presentation in place, or what the tool returns. The existence of an output schema is not reflected in the description, leaving the return behavior undocumented.
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, compact sentence that conveys the core capability without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the key options. No filler or redundant phrases are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema description. The description covers only the high-level resizing concept and omits crucial operational details such as required parameters (slide_number, shape_id), how to specify values, error handling, and return values. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional knowledge about the parameter interactions and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The description references 'absolute width/height' and 'scaling multipliers' but does not map these to specific parameter names (width, height, scale_x, scale_y, scale_width, scale_height). It also mentions 'optional aspect ratio lock' but does not clarify how lock_aspect_ratio behaves relative to other parameters. Many parameters (presentation_path, slide_number, shape_id) are not addressed, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resize a shape using absolute width/height in inches or scaling multipliers with optional aspect ratio lock.' It identifies the verb (resize), the resource (shape), and the two resizing mechanisms. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ppt_modify_shape, which might also resize, but the specificity of the description makes the purpose unambiguous.
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. It never mentions that this tool is for pure resizing and that other modifications (e.g., moving, aligning) should use other tools. There is no contextual advice or exclusions, 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: children are proportionally adjusted/reflowed to maintain padding and prevent overflow. This is valuable. However, with no annotations, the description does not cover additional behavioral aspects such as parameter precedence (e.g., width vs dwidth), whether the presentation is saved, the effect of 'scale_width'/'scale_height', or reversibility. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.
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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and its primary side effect. There is no filler or redundant wording; every clause contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that may provide return details, the description is still far too thin. It does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., how width, dwidth, and scale_width relate), units, or how to choose between absolute and delta sizing. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without opening the schema and guessing at semantics.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter explanations. The meanings of dwidth/dheight relative to width/height, the scale parameters, and the reflow_children flag are completely undocumented beyond their types and defaults. The description adds zero value in helping an agent choose correct parameter values.
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 clearly states the action: resizing a logical container (card) and proportionally adjusting/reflowing children to maintain padding and prevent overflow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ppt_resize_shape (which resizes a shape without container semantics) and ppt_reflow_container (which only reflows without resizing). However, it doesn't explicitly list which attributes change (width, height, etc.) or how reflow works mechanically.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions that would favor ppt_reflow_container for pure reflow, or ppt_resize_shape for individual shapes. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral implications. It describes the operation (distribute) but omits any side effects, reversibility, error cases, or prerequisites beyond the shape count. There's no mention of what happens to the shapes' original positions or whether the operation is destructive. A mutation tool with no annotations leaves agents guessing about safety and impact, so a 2 is appropriate.
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, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and includes key options (axis and spacing mode) in a scannable manner. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple sibling tools, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics for most fields, fails to explain when to choose this over similar tools, and provides no behavior or return value expectations. While an output schema exists, its presence doesn't compensate for the missing usage and parameter guidance. The description is adequate for a basic idea but insufficient for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining all parameters. It covers 'direction' (horizontal or vertical) and 'spacing_mode' (equal gaps or equal centers) indirectly, but it does not address slide_number, shape_ids, or presentation_path. While the 3+ shapes hint maps to shape_ids, the meaning and format of the remaining parameters are not clarified, leaving a significant knowledge gap.
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 clearly states the tool distributes shapes evenly along horizontal or vertical axes, with the choice of equal gaps or centers. It specifies the resource (shapes) and the action (distribute), which is more specific than just 'distribute'. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like ppt_space_shapes or ppt_align_shapes, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.
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 description implies a prerequisite of at least 3 shapes ('3 or more shapes') and mentions configurable direction and spacing mode, giving some context. Yet it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as align, space, or equalize sizes, nor does it state any conditions where it should not be used. The usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit, earning a middling score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that operations are deterministic and that only provided properties are modified, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects of alignment/distribution, whether presentation_path is required, or how multi-shape operations behave.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and behavior. No wasted words, and the key constraint about only modifying provided properties is stated early.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description is vastly incomplete for a 17-parameter tool. It lacks units, coordinate system details, behavior for alignment/distribution, and explanation of required vs optional parameters. No mention of presentation_path or target_shape_ids usage. The description does not give enough context to call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only lists broad categories (coordinates, dimensions, rotation) without explaining distinctions like absolute vs relative (x vs dx, width vs dwidth) or the semantics of align, distribute, and target_shape_ids. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone.
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 clearly states the tool updates a shape's coordinates, dimensions, rotation, z-order, and can apply alignment/distribution. It names the resource and action specifically. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ppt_move_shape or ppt_resize_shape that target the same properties individually.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specialized sibling tools. No mention of alternatives or conditions for choosing this general modifier over a single-purpose tool, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions preservation of formatting but does not disclose side effects, permissions, exact behavior of offsets, or any constraints like whether the clone is positioned relative to the original. The description is too thin on behavioral details.
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, clear sentence with no redundant words. The key action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters (2 required). It fails to explain the purpose of offsets, target slide, and presentation_path, which are critical for correct invocation. The description leaves the agent guessing about how to set these fields.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions the concept of copying but fails to describe shape_id, slide_number, offsets, target_slide_number, or presentation_path. Since the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema (which also lacks descriptions), this is a major gap.
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 clearly states the verb 'Clone' with the resource 'existing shape' and specifies what is preserved (formatting, fills, lines, text styles). It also mentions the ability to copy to the same or different slide, distinguishing it from move/modify operations among siblings like ppt_move_shape and ppt_modify_shape.
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 description implies when to use it (for duplicating shapes while preserving style) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. It provides some context about slide targeting but lacks explicit routing to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one valuable disclosure: 'Creates safety backup before mutation,' which is important for a destructive tool. However, it does not explain what 'Controlled' means, whether the backup is restored automatically on failure, how to revert to the backup, or what happens to prior edits — leaving significant behavioral surface undisclosed for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the safety backup fact as a separate clear note. No wasted words. It loses one point only because the phrase 'low-level OOXML manipulation helper' is slightly redundant with the tool name and could have been spent on more unique value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex, destructive 15-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, yet the description covers only general intent and the backup behavior. It does not document the operation set, the selection model, the validation/control guarantees behind 'Controlled,' or the interplay between parameters. Even with an output schema present, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call for anything beyond the simplest gradient/shadow case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It groups some params by feature category (gradients, transparency, shadows) but never explains the core control parameters: what 'operation' values exist beyond the default 'set_attribute', how selection works across slide_number/shape_id/xpath, the format of attributes and xml_fragment, or presentation_path semantics. For an agent, these are the load-bearing parameters and they are entirely unexplained.
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 names a specific verb+resource: 'Controlled low-level OOXML manipulation helper' for 'gradients, transparency, drop shadows, and raw XML manipulation.' This is specific about what it does and hints at its lower-level nature relative to siblings like ppt_modify_shape, but it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it is not, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 feature list (gradients, transparency, shadows, raw XML) implies it is for advanced or low-level manipulation needs, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus siblings like ppt_modify_shape or ppt_apply_style, nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., 'for simple shape edits use ppt_modify_shape'). No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool initializes an isolated session with a working copy and returns session status and presentation overview, which gives some insight into side effects (state creation). However, it does not mention potential failures, need for cleanup, or the significance of the returned session for subsequent operations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, purpose, and return value. It is concise with no fluff or redundancy. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is the entry-point tool for an editing session, the description fails to mention that the returned session status likely contains an identifier that must be used with subsequent tools. It also does not mention prerequisites like file existence or read/write permissions. While an output schema exists, the description alone does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly chain it with sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter semantics. The only parameter, presentation_path, is not mentioned at all. The description only says 'Open a PowerPoint presentation' without clarifying the expected format, file access requirements, or any constraints. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and title.
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 clearly states the verb 'Open' with the resource 'PowerPoint presentation', and adds the unique purpose of initializing an isolated editing session with a working copy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ppt_save or ppt_modify_shape, which operate on an already-open presentation. The function's role as the entry point is unambiguous.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies that opening is a prerequisite for editing by mentioning 'isolated editing session', but it never states 'call this before any modification tools' or outlines conditions where it should not be used. The agent is left to infer the usage context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (render to PNG) but does not disclose whether the operation modifies the presentation, requires the file to be open, or what files it creates (e.g., output directory handling). The output schema may cover the return format, but side effects and constraints are unspecified.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no annotation coverage, and no schema descriptions, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on parameter usage, side effects, file handling, and any constraints (e.g., whether the presentation must be opened first). The output schema exists but the description does not bridge the gap for a correct call.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters (dpi, renderer, output_dir, presentation_path). It provides no explanations of these parameters, their defaults, or how they affect rendering. An agent cannot know what 'renderer' options exist or how 'output_dir' is used.
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 clearly states the verb 'render' and the resource 'all slides in the presentation', and specifies the output format 'PNG images'. It is distinct from sibling ppt_render_slide, which is implied by the 'all slides' scope, so an agent can differentiate.
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 description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like ppt_render_slide, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'all slides' phrasing gives some implication for batch rendering, but there is no direct routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behaviors. It does state that the original is not modified, which is positive, but it fails to mention the overwrite parameter's behavior (default false means it may error or not overwrite an existing file, but this is not described) or the role of presentation_path. This leaves critical behavioral unknowns.
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, concise sentence with no filler. The key constraint (not modifying the original) is front-loaded and the purpose is stated efficiently. Structural excellence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters including an overwrite flag and an optional presentation_path, and there are siblings like ppt_save, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot correctly infer parameter usage or when to select this tool. The output schema exists, but that does not help with parameter semantics or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only implicitly references output_path as the destination, but does not explain overwrite (whether it controls overwriting an existing file) or presentation_path (which presentation to save). This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.
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 'Save' with resource 'session working copy' and a destination path, and explicitly distinguishes from the original by saying 'without modifying the original.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling ppt_save, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ppt_save or ppt_revert. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for creating a copy. No conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'deterministically', which is a useful trait, but it does not explicitly state that it modifies shapes in place, whether it preserves aspect ratios, or what happens if shapes are locked or have conflicting constraints. The mutating nature is implied but not explicitly flagged as destructive.
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 well-structured sentence that packs the core function, scope, and methods without fluff. It front-loads the primary action and avoids redundant details, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the interaction between mode and target dimensions, the default behavior when both equalize flags are true, or the output structure (though an output schema exists). Important edge cases and prerequisites are unaddressed.
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 description hints at parameter meanings: 'width, height, or both' maps to equalize_width and equalize_height, and 'first, max, min, avg, or target dimensions' maps to mode and target_width/target_height. However, it does not explicitly name parameters or explain the interplay, and with 0% schema coverage, it leaves ambiguity around mode values and the exact role of target dimensions.
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 clearly states the verb ('Equalize'), the resource ('shapes'), the scope ('width, height, or both'), and the methods ('first, max, min, avg, or target dimensions'). It distinguishes from sibling alignment/distribution tools by focusing on size equalization rather than positioning. The mention of 'deterministically' adds specificity about behavior.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ppt_resize_shape or ppt_align_shapes. The description implies it is for multiple shapes, but it does not explicitly exclude single-shape use or mention scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it 'Defaults to concise agent-friendly summary', which is a useful behavioral trait about output format. It also lists supported filters, but it does not explain the effects of those filters (e.g., what include_style does when false) nor explicitly state that the tool is read-only and does not modify the presentation. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.
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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second highlights the default behavior and lists key filters. Every word contributes, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 1 required, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of many parameters, does not specify valid values for shape_types or semantic_roles, and does not clarify what each include_* toggle controls. While an output schema exists and handles return value structure, the agent lacks guidance on how to configure the tool effectively for different inspection needs. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions several filter names (text_only, include_geometry, include_style, include_images, shape_types, semantic_roles) but does not define their meaning, acceptable values, or interactions. It omits other parameters like detail, include_xml, and presentation_path entirely. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient, leaving an agent to guess at semantics.
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 clearly states the tool 'Inspect shapes on a specific slide', which identifies the verb (inspect), the resource (shapes on a slide), and the scope (specific slide). It is distinct from sibling tools like ppt_inspect_presentation (whole presentation) and ppt_inspect_shape (single shape), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The mention of filtering and detail control adds clarity about its function.
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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need to inspect shapes on a specific slide, as opposed to other inspect tools. However, it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, such as when to use ppt_inspect_presentation for presentation-level data or ppt_inspect_shape for a single shape. The phrase 'with filtering and detail control' hints at use cases, but there are no exclusions or clear recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the atomicity and alignment-preservation behavior, which is valuable. But it omits other important traits such as whether the operation is reversible, effect on non-container objects, or the shape of the response. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but the disclosure is partial.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise and free of fluff, every word adds meaning. It could be slightly longer to cover parameters, but as written it is well-structured.
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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain target specification, prerequisites, or error cases. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing guidance on how to call the tool.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter. An agent cannot determine the meaning of x vs dx, how to obtain container_id, or the role of presentation_path. This is a critical gap for a tool with 7 parameters.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Move') applied to a specific resource ('logical container (card)') and includes the distinguishing detail that all nested child shapes move atomically. This differentiates it from siblings like ppt_move_shape (which moves a single shape) and ppt_resize_container (which resizes).
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 description implies usage: it is for moving containers with nested children while preserving alignment, which hints at when to choose it over ppt_move_shape. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the differentiation from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that coordinates are in inches and distinguishes absolute vs relative movement, but it does not explain what happens if both x/y and dx/dy are supplied, the reference point for absolute coordinates (e.g., top-left), or whether the shape is repositioned in-place. These are critical behavioral aspects for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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, tightly written sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the two modes and units without any redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify whether at least one of x/y or dx/dy must be provided (the schema allows none), what happens when both are provided, the coordinate reference point, and the optionality of presentation_path. While an output schema exists, it does not address these call-time ambiguities.
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 description clarifies that x/y are absolute coordinates and dx/dy are relative deltas, which is essential because the schema itself has 0% description coverage and only provides parameter names. However, it does not explain the meaning of slide_number or presentation_path, nor the interaction between the two coordinate sets. The core movement parameters are given meaning, but the rest remain ambiguous.
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 clearly states the action (move), the target resource (a shape), and the two distinct mechanisms (absolute x/y or relative dx/dy in inches). This immediately distinguishes it from related tools like ppt_move_container or ppt_align_shapes, which target different resources or operations.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ppt_align_shapes, ppt_resize_shape, or ppt_move_container. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or which sibling to prefer for a given scenario. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the alignment capability and convenience, but does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it modifies the presentation in place, how reference_shape_id affects behavior, or any dependencies. It also does not indicate whether shapes are repositioned relative to each other or a reference. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
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 that front-loads the core action and includes relevant qualifiers (the alignment positions and the benefit). There is no wasted wording; it is as concise as possible while conveying the primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and a complex domain (presentation shapes), the description lacks guidance on reference_shape_id semantics, when to use this versus distribution/spacing tools, and what side effects occur. Although an output schema exists, the behavioral and usage gaps make it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description only implicitly covers a few parameters: 'multiple shapes' maps to shape_ids, and alignment types are listed, but slide_number is assumed and reference_shape_id is not mentioned at all. presentation_path is entirely unaddressed. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 specifies the verb 'Align' with the resource 'multiple shapes' and enumerates the alignment options (left, center, right, top, middle, bottom). It also adds a distinguishing benefit ('without manual coordinate math') that separates it from coordinate-based manual adjustment, clearly conveying purpose and differentiating from siblings like distribute or move.
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 description implies usage for aligning shapes along common edges or center lines, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ppt_distribute_shapes or ppt_move_shape. It also does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., shapes must be on the same slide), so usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that text content is not changed, which is a useful behavioral guarantee. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, such as whether existing styles are overwritten, whether shape geometry is affected, or any permission/rate limitations. The level of transparency is moderate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists all presets. It is easy to scan and does not waste words. However, it could be improved by separating the two modes into distinct sentences for clarity, but the current structure is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is under-specified. It does not explain the mutual exclusivity or combination rules between preset and manual style parameters, which parameters are needed for each mode, or how shape_ids and shape_id differ. The agent would likely struggle to invoke this correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only introduces two modes (preset and source-shape transfer) via the preset and source_shape_id concepts, but does not explain the roles of fill_color, font_color, line_color, bold, italic, shape_ids, or the source_slide_number/presentation_path parameters. An agent has little guidance on how to set these fields correctly.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: applying predefined style presets or transferring fill/border/font styles from a source shape, with an explicit constraint that text content is unchanged. It lists all preset names, making the action concrete and distinguishing it from sibling tools like ppt_modify_shape which handle manual property changes.
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 description implies usage for styling operations (presets or copying styles) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'when you need consistent design' or contrast with ppt_modify_shape or ppt_batch_modify_shapes. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention pre-validation of shape IDs and atomic application, which is valuable. However, it omits details on error handling when validation fails, whether changes are in-memory or require saving, and side effects on the presentation. These gaps are significant for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and key behavioral traits. No redundant wording exists. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing operation fields), but it is appropriately compact given the content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex batch tool with an operations array whose item schema is entirely untyped (additionalProperties true). The description does not explain what an operation object should contain, nor does it clarify prerequisites like an open presentation. While an output schema exists, it cannot compensate for missing usage details about input construction. The description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only lists high-level geometry categories (positions, sizes, rotations, z-orders) but does not describe the structure of the operations array items, the meaning of slide_number, or the role of presentation_path (default null). An agent cannot correctly construct the operations array from this description alone.
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 (modify) and resource (multiple shape geometries) with concrete attributes (positions, sizes, rotations, z-orders). It clearly differentiates from single-shape tools like ppt_modify_shape and batch text modification, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
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 'in a single transaction' implies a batch use case and atomicity benefit, but the description does not explicitly contrast with calling ppt_modify_shape repeatedly or state when a single-shape tool would be preferable. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving selection partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'deterministic' nature and what outputs are generated, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether files are written to disk (output_diff_path implies that), any side effects, or prerequisites like rendering the slide first.
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 sentence that is concise and well-structured, front-loading the core action and outputs without any filler.
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?
This is a moderate-complexity tool with an output schema present. The description gives the core purpose and outputs, which is adequate for basic understanding, but it misses important usage context (when to use, parameter semantics, potential side effects). Given no annotations, more detail would be needed to make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description must compensate. It indirectly references the two images ('two slide renders'), but does not explain the threshold parameter or output_diff_path. With four parameters and no other descriptions, this is a significant gap for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 clearly states the tool performs pixel-level image comparison between two slide renders, listing specific outputs (diff image, bounding boxes, similarity metrics). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from the sibling ppt_compare_slides which likely does a different type of comparison.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for visual diffing rather than structural comparison, nor does it reference ppt_compare_slides or any context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions pre-validation, single transaction atomicity, and preservation of bullets/indent structures by default, which adds value. However, it leaves undefined what 'pre-validation' entails, what happens on failure, and the scope of effects (e.g., in-memory vs saved), so it is only partially transparent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key feature. No redundant wording; each sentence adds information. Exceptionally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex with an operations array and multiple parameters, but the description omits details on the operations structure, pre-validation semantics, and how presentation_path is used. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves several necessary details for correct invocation, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It gives no detail about the 'operations' array structure, the meaning of slide_number, or the optional presentation_path. The phrase 'modify multiple text shapes' hints operations contains modifications, but the exact fields are undocumented, making it insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.
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 clearly states the tool modifies multiple text shapes on a slide, with a batch transaction and pre-validation. It distinguishes from ppt_modify_text (singular) and ppt_batch_modify_shapes (general shapes) by focusing on text shapes and batch operation. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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 description implies usage when modifying multiple text shapes, but does not explicitly contrast with single-modification tools like ppt_modify_text or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit alternative guidance or exclusions, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it 'Returns structured summary counts and issue descriptions', which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies the presentation, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., whether the presentation must be open). It also does not describe error handling or edge cases. The output info is good, but side effects and safety are unclear.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then lists specific error codes, and closes with the output type. Every part adds value. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool. The core purpose is clear, but parameters like 'rules' (which likely filters which checks to run) and 'detail' (which controls output verbosity) are not explained. The agent may be able to call with just the required slide_number and rely on defaults, but any customization would require guessing. The description lacks essential operational detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It never mentions parameters like 'rules', 'detail', 'slide_number', or 'presentation_path'. The only indirect hint is 'on a slide' which maps to slide_number. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself has no descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to pass or what the defaults mean.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run rule-based geometric and typographic validation on a slide' and enumerates specific error codes (VAL-01 through VAL-07). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspection (which likely returns raw data) and analysis (which may assess structure). It is a specific verb+resource description.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when validation is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since it lists specific issue types, an agent could infer it is for detecting those issues, but there is no comparison to inspect or analyze tools. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns detailed shape properties, which implies a read-only inspection, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the presentation, nor does it mention prerequisites like the presentation being open or potential errors. The OOXML snippet detail adds some transparency about output, but gaps remain regarding side effects and requirements.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get exhaustive details for a single shape') and then enumerates the included attributes. There is no fluff or repetition, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 has an output schema (indicated in context), so the description is not required to explain return values. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and usage guidance, and provides only partial behavioral context. For a complex inspection tool with three parameters, this is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain the meaning of shape_id, slide_number, or presentation_path beyond what the schema provides. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no context about how they relate to the operation or any constraints (e.g., that shape_id is scoped to a specific slide). This is a notable gap.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'exhaustive details for a single shape on a slide', and enumerates the specific properties returned (text frames, paragraphs, runs, margins, line styling, fill properties, OOXML snippet). This distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools such as ppt_inspect_slide (slide-level) and ppt_inspect_text (text-focused), so an agent can immediately identify the tool's scope.
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 description implies the tool is for inspecting a single shape but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives or states when to prefer this over ppt_inspect_slide or ppt_inspect_text. While the name and purpose make the use case obvious, the absence of explicit routing guidance (e.g., 'for slide-level details use ppt_inspect_slide') leaves the decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'inspect' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the presentation, nor does it disclose performance characteristics or error behavior. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the first states the purpose and efficiency advantage, the second lists return contents. Very concise and front-loaded, every word earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not needed. However, the description does not cover the optional parameters, and since the schema has no descriptions, an agent may not know how to set include_style or include_geometry. The core use case is clear, but the parameter space is under-documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions returning font styling and coordinates, which hints at include_style and include_geometry, but it does not explicitly map parameters to behavior nor explain the optional flags like include_paragraph_metadata. With five parameters, this is a significant gap.
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 clearly states it inspects all text-bearing shapes on a slide, distinguishing it from full shape-tree inspection. It also lists specific return contents (shape IDs, semantic roles, text, styling, coordinates), which separates it from sibling tools like ppt_inspect_slide or ppt_inspect_shape.
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 description implies a lighter-weight alternative to full shape-tree inspection ('without full shape-tree overhead'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like ppt_inspect_slide or ppt_inspect_shape, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature by using the word 'discard' and indicates the working copy's state changes. However, it does not mention irreversibility, whether changes are permanent, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Discard current uncommitted edits') and then specifies the options. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description should be more complete. It omits critical details such as the irreversibility of the operation, how to specify a backup timestamp (format, where to find it), and the role of presentation_path. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the overall context is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'target' parameter by mentioning 'original state or a specified backup timestamp', giving it meaning. However, it does not explain 'presentation_path' at all, leaving it ambiguous. With two parameters and only one explained, the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the action (discard edits, revert), the resource (working copy), and the two options (original state or backup timestamp). This distinguishes it from siblings like ppt_save (which saves) and ppt_open (which opens). The verb 'revert' is unique among the sibling tools, making it unambiguous.
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 gives clear context: use this when you want to discard uncommitted edits and revert. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use ppt_save to keep edits). Since there are no exclusions or named alternatives, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the backup behavior ('creating an automatic timestamped backup before writing') and the concept of a 'session working copy', which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens to existing data, whether overwriting occurs, or any side effects beyond the backup. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and the key behavioral detail (backup) with no filler. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a save tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use this rather than ppt_save_as, what to pass for presentation_path (or what happens if it's null), or what side effects occur (beyond backup). With only one parameter and no annotations, the agent is left to guess critical usage details, making this inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (presentation_path) with 0% description coverage. The tool description mentions 'original presentation path' but does not explain what the parameter represents or how it relates to the action. Since the parameter is optional, an agent may be unsure whether to supply it or rely on the session's default. The description fails to clarify the parameter's meaning, leaving a significant gap.
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 action ('Save session working copy back to the original presentation path') with a clear resource and target, and distinguishes itself from ppt_save_as by emphasizing 'original' path. An agent can immediately understand the tool's role without opening the schema.
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 implies when to use this tool (saving to the original path) versus alternatives like ppt_save_as, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state exclusions. It provides clear context ('original presentation path') but leaves the contrast to inference, so it falls short of explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The closing clause 'without modifying any state' directly signals that this is a non-destructive read operation, which is valuable safety context. It adds value beyond the schema by confirming the tool has no side effects.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, states the covered fields, and closes with the key behavioral constraint. There is zero filler or repetition — every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. Given the simple single-parameter surface and the description's clear scope plus non-mutation disclosure, this is nearly complete. It falls just short only because it omits explicit guidance on how to reach this tool versus the slide/shape/text inspection variants.
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 0% and the description says nothing about the presentation_path parameter. However, the single parameter's name is self-explanatory and the description's opening establishes the presentation context, so an agent can reasonably infer it expects a path to the target file. The description adds minimal but adequate guidance given the parameter's obviousness.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Inspect') paired with a precisely scoped resource ('high-level presentation metadata') and enumerates the exact fields covered (slide count, dimensions, master layout names, titles). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling inspection tools like ppt_inspect_slide, ppt_inspect_shape, and ppt_inspect_text, which target finer-grained entities.
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 scope is implied by 'high-level presentation metadata' — an agent could infer this is for whole-presentation inspection rather than slide/shape/text level. However, the description never names alternatives or states explicit when/when-not conditions, leaving the differentiation to inference rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PowerPointMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atharva-bedekar/PowerPointMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atharva-bedekar/PowerPointMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PowerPointMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atharva-bedekar/PowerPointMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atharva-bedekar/PowerPointMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/atharva-bedekar/PowerPointMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server