Inspect PowerPoint PPTX presentations to extract slide size, text, speaker notes, and object counts for content and structure analysis.
Inspect PPTX slide size, text, notes, and object counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path or path relative to the server working directory | |
| maxSlides | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the inventory of what gets inspected, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about how maxSlides truncates results or how failures (missing/corrupt file, unlocked PPTX) surface.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb and then lists the inspected facets with zero filler. It is efficient, though the fragmentary list style leaves room for one clause of clarifying context at no real cost.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description reasonably enumerates the returned facets (size, text, notes, object counts). However, it omits the maxSlides truncation behavior, which materially affects results for large decks and is the one piece of information an inspecting agent most needs.
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 50%: path is documented in the schema, but maxSlides (default 200, max 1000) carries no description anywhere. The description does not mention the slide limit or what happens when a deck exceeds it, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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 pairs a specific verb ("Inspect") with a specific resource ("PPTX") and enumerates what is examined: slide size, text, notes, and object counts. This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like powerpoint_replace_text or powerpoint_native_batch, though it never contrasts itself with the close neighbor powerpoint_audit_presentation.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of cases. With sibling tools such as powerpoint_audit_presentation and powerpoint_inspect_template present, the agent is left to infer the boundary entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.