Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Office Live MCP

Office Live MCP

by benjaminfrombe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

transform_slide

Vertically rescale a band of shapes on a slide in one atomic operation, keeping connectors attached and content outside the band untouched.

Instructions

Vertically rescale a band of shapes (e.g. shrink the content of a slide by 30%) in ONE atomic operation. Shapes whose top falls inside [topPt, bottomPt] are remapped to start at newTopPt with factor scaleY. Connector-like shapes (cxnSp, line/connector geometries, single-stroke bezier custGeom) get their height rescaled too so endpoints stay attached; all other shapes keep their height unless listed in scaleHeightShapeIds. Text, images and footers outside the band are untouched.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slide": "<slide>",
      "topPt": "<topPt>",
      "bottomPt": "<bottomPt>",
      "scaleY": "<scaleY>"
    },
    "name": "transform_slide"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slideYesSlide number, 1-based
topPtYesTop of the band to transform, in points (slide is 960x540 pt).
scaleYYesVertical scale factor, e.g. 0.7 = 30% shorter.
bottomPtYesBottom of the band to transform, in points.
newTopPtNoWhere the top of the scaled band should land. Default: keep topPt.
presentationIdNoTarget presentation ID. Optional when only one presentation is connected.
scaleHeightShapeIdsNoShape IDs (from scan_slide) whose height should scale with the band (e.g. the two big panel rectangles).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does heavy lifting: atomic single-operation semantics, the selection rule (shapes whose top falls in the band), connector exception handling so endpoints stay attached, and which content is untouched. It stops short of stating permissions, undo/reversibility, or what happens on out-of-band or invalid input.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the atomicity claim, then rules in decreasing generality. It is dense but nearly every clause encodes a distinct behavior; only the trailing 'Text, images and footers outside the band are untouched' slightly overlaps the band-selection rule already stated.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers scope, selection semantics, exceptions, and side-effect boundaries. The only gap is the return value, and the tool's effect is described precisely enough that an agent can call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: the band membership rule is based on shape tops, scaleHeightShapeIds is explained as the escape hatch for non-connector shapes that should still scale, and default behavior for newTopPt is reinforced. That is genuine semantic value beyond field 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Vertically rescale a band of shapes'), plus a concrete example ('shrink the content of a slide by 30%') and an explicit atomicity guarantee. This clearly distinguishes it from geometry-neutral siblings like format_shapes or raw XML tools like edit_slide_xml.

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?

Usage context is concrete: a bounded band of shapes, with the example making intent obvious, and the scaleHeightShapeIds reference to scan_slide implies a workflow. However, it never explicitly says when to pick this over format_shapes or set_dimensions, nor when not to use it (e.g. scaling the whole slide).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools