Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ppt-generator

ppt-generator

by haandol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ingest_review

Validates a slide's review result, reports issues, and returns fix feedback for high-severity findings to guide slide regeneration.

Instructions

Ingests a slide's review result: validate, return issues (report-only).

Call AFTER prepare_review. Does NOT auto-regenerate. If has_high_severity, the response includes fix_feedback — pass it into prepare_slide_edit( action="update") to regenerate the slide with the review feedback applied.

Args: project_id: Target project ID (required). slide_index: 1-based slide position. review_json: The review result JSON generated by the client. review_context: Opaque token returned by prepare_review.

Returns: JSON with has_high_severity, issues, optional fix_feedback.

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>",
      "slide_index": "<slide_index>",
      "review_json": "<review_json>",
      "review_context": "<review_context>"
    },
    "name": "ingest_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
review_jsonYes
slide_indexYes
review_contextYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / review_context
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Review Context",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "project_id",
-  "slide_index",
-  "review_json"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "slide_index",
+  "review_json",
+  "review_context"
+]
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: the operation is non-mutating (report-only), it does not trigger regeneration, and the response conditionally includes fix_feedback only when has_high_severity is true. It does not cover what happens on validation failure or whether the ingested result is persisted, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the hard sequencing constraint before any Args/Returns detail. The Args/Returns blocks are terse and every line carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a four-param, no-annotation, write-adjacent tool, the description covers prerequisites, non-mutation guarantees, the conditional response shape, and the exact next-step handoff. Even though an output schema exists, the inline Returns summary usefully previews the branch condition the agent must act on.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all four required params: it flags slide_index as 1-based (critical and absent from the schema), identifies review_json as client-generated, and explains that review_context is an opaque token returned by prepare_review — telling the agent where to obtain it.

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 ('Ingests a slide's review result') plus the exact processing semantics ('validate, return issues (report-only)'). The parenthetical '(report-only)' immediately distinguishes it from the mutating siblings like ingest_slide_edit or prepare_slide_edit.

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?

Explicit ordering constraint ('Call AFTER prepare_review'), an explicit exclusion ('Does NOT auto-regenerate'), and a conditional branch naming the exact alternative call ('pass it into prepare_slide_edit(action="update")'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done properly.

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