Draws a straight line between two points on a Keynote slide, with color and thickness set by the presentation theme.
Línea recta entre dos puntos (en puntos). El color y el grosor los pone el tema; no se pueden fijar por script.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | ||
| x2 | Yes | ||
| y1 | Yes | ||
| y2 | Yes | ||
| documento | Yes | id de la presentación (de listar_presentaciones_abiertas, abrir o crear) o su nombre exacto | |
| diapositiva | Yes | número de diapositiva, empezando en 1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral limitation: color and thickness come from the theme and cannot be set by script. It remains silent on mutability of the line afterwards, permissions, and what (if anything) is returned or how the object is identified.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the theming caveat follows immediately. Nothing is padded.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover more, yet it omits whether the line can later be moved/selected, whether it needs an existing slide, and any return value. It is adequate for invocation but not complete for a mutation tool with six required params.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, but the description usefully clarifies that coordinates are measured in points, which the schema does not state. The four coordinate parameters (x1/y1/x2/y2) still lack any explanation of ordering or whether they are slide-relative.
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?
States a specific action and resource: a straight line between two points, with coordinates measured in points. It does not name or distinguish itself from related siblings such as forma, diapositiva_figura, or alinear_objetos, so an agent must infer that this is the plain-geometry primitive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus forma or diapositiva_figura, nor any prerequisite about the slide already existing. The only contextual statement is a constraint (theme controls color/thickness), which is not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.