Returns the full slide deck state—slides, shapes, properties, undo/redo flags, and clipboard summary—so agents can inspect the current document before making edits.
Return the full document state (slides, shapes, props), undo/redo flags, and clipboard summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a non-mutating read, and it usefully discloses the payload includes undo/redo flags and a clipboard summary, but it says nothing about payload size, latency, or whether the snapshot is expensive to produce.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload contents. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does so at a reasonable level of detail (slides, shapes, props, undo/redo flags, clipboard summary). Minor gap: no sense of nesting/shape of the returned structure or how large it may be.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema is trivially complete.
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?
Specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('full document state') with the contents enumerated: slides, shapes, props, undo/redo flags, clipboard summary. This clearly separates it from partial-read siblings like document.list_slides or document.get_slide, though those siblings are never named explicitly.
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?
The description only enumerates what comes back; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when a cheaper targeted read (document.get_slide, document.list_shapes, document.can_undo) would suffice, and no cost/size caveat for a whole-document snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.