PPTX Generator MCP Server

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 states it 'gets' a template, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a static or dynamic template, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get an example markdown template') and adds clarifying context ('showing the correct format for creating presentations'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling). Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more completeness, such as hinting at the return value, but it minimally covers the purpose.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'example markdown template', specifying it shows 'correct format for creating presentations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_presentation' (creates presentations) and 'list_presentations' (lists existing ones), though not explicitly. However, it could be more specific about what distinguishes it from 'get_config'.

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

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

The description implies usage when needing a template for presentation creation, suggesting it's for formatting guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_presentation' (for actual creation) or 'get_config' (for configuration). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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