Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docs Bridge

Docs Bridge

by dylansantwani
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

slides_list

List Google Slides presentations from recent files or a Drive search query, with optional account selection for signed-in Google users.

Instructions

List Google Slides presentations: recently opened, or a Drive search when query is given.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "slides_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNoDrive search text. Omit for recent presentations.
accountNoWhich signed-in Google account to use: an index as in /u/N/ URLs (0 = first account) or an email address. Omit for the browser default. Use this for presentations owned by a second (e.g. school) account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 mode switch driven by query presence, but says nothing about the read-only/listing nature, pagination, ordering, or what limit does, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with the primary function front-loaded and the conditional behavior trailing, no filler. Every clause 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers how to choose the query mode but omits limit semantics, account scoping, and any sense of the result set. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 67%: query and account are self-documented in the schema with rich text, while limit has no description anywhere and the tool description never mentions it. The description reinforces query's effect but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Google Slides presentations') and describes two modes of operation, so an agent knows roughly what it gets. It does not name any sibling (e.g., slides_open vs docs_list) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives the selection condition explicitly: omit query for recently opened, supply query for a Drive search. That is clear usage context for the main branching decision, though it offers no when-not or alternative-tool guidance.

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