ppt-generator

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ingest_outline

Submit the client-generated outline JSON to validate it, inject presenter details, and save the project outline for slide design or export.

Instructions

Ingests the client-generated outline JSON: validates, injects presenter info, saves.

Call this AFTER prepare_outline, passing the outline JSON you generated following the returned response_schema.

An end-to-end deck request may proceed directly to design after this call. Stop for confirmation only when the user requested an outline-only result or explicitly asked to approve the slide composition.

Args: project_id: Project ID returned by prepare_outline (required). outline_json: The outline JSON generated by the client, matching the schema from prepare_outline ({"slides": [...]}).

Returns: JSON string containing outline_path and project_id.

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>",
      "outline_json": "<outline_json>"
    },
    "name": "ingest_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`outline_json`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effects: validation, presenter-info injection, and persistence. It also flags the confirmation gating behavior, which the agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not cover failure behavior on invalid JSON or whether an existing outline is overwritten, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Front-loads the action in one sentence, then gives sequencing, workflow branching, and args in a conventional, scannable structure. Slightly verbose in the confirmation paragraph but every sentence carries actionable routing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return note is sufficient; the important completeness gap is workflow, and that is well covered pre-call, post-call, and at the branching decision. Only error/overwrite behavior is left unaddressed for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate; it does so by stating project_id comes from prepare_outline and that outline_json must match the schema returned by prepare_outline in the form {"slides": [...]}. That is meaningful format and provenance information not present in the schema. It stops short of describing required vs. optional slide fields.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource plus the internal behavior: 'Ingests the client-generated outline JSON: validates, injects presenter info, saves.' This clearly separates it from prepare_outline (which precedes it) and from load_outline/save_outline_slide, which act on individual slides.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the prerequisite ('Call this AFTER prepare_outline') and the source of the payload ('the outline JSON you generated following the returned response_schema'). It also states the branching rule: proceed to design for an end-to-end deck, stop for confirmation only for outline-only or explicit-approval requests.

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