create_presentationCreates a new, empty Google Slides presentation from a title and returns its ID and URL, so you can start adding slides and content.
Create a new, empty Google Slides presentation and return its ID and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Presentation title |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (ID and URL), which matters because there is no output schema. It could still say that repeated calls create duplicate decks, but the non-idempotent hint covers that.
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 tightly written sentence with the create action and the return value both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and 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?
For a simple one-parameter creation tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the empty-deck semantics, and the return values. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance against the closest sibling, create_deck_from_outline.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Presentation title', minLength 1), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the title, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is the baseline, not a strength.
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 verb and resource ('Create a new, empty Google Slides presentation') and adds the important qualifier 'empty', so the agent knows no slides are generated. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_deck_from_outline, which produces a populated deck.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as create_deck_from_outline, nor any prerequisites (auth scope, drive location) or exclusions. The agent must infer the choice between an empty deck and an outline-generated deck from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.