ppt-generator

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

finalize_visual_qa

Rebuilds deck container HTML and runs full PPTX export after visual QA fixes, so corrected slides are packaged for delivery. Call once after all fix iterations.

Instructions

Rebuilds the deck container HTML + full export after visual QA fixes. No LLM call.

Call ONCE after all fix iterations are done.

Args: project_id: Target project ID (required).

Returns: JSON with project_id, slides_html_path, and pptx_path when export succeeds.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "finalize_visual_qa"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no LLM call is made, that the tool rebuilds HTML and exports, and that it should be called once, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, failure modes, permissions, or other side effects.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the key timing instruction prominent. The Args and Returns sections are useful, though the Returns section partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter finalization tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, no-LLM behavior, and successful return fields. It is adequate, though it could say more about destructive/overwrite behavior since no annotations are available.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It identifies project_id as the target project ID and marks it required, but adds no format, source, or example beyond the parameter name.

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?

The description states a specific action: rebuilding the deck container HTML and performing a full export after visual QA fixes. It is clearly more specific than the name alone, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from export_html or export_pptx siblings.

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 a clear timing rule: call ONCE after all fix iterations are done. That is actionable usage guidance, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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