Execute sandboxed Python scripts against the live PowerPoint document to modify slides, shapes, and text through bound APIs, with unsafe imports and eval blocked.
Execute a Python string against the live Document. Bound names: document, slides, current_slide, undo_stack, rt (with add_text/add_rect/...), math, random, json. Imports, eval/exec, and dunder access are blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work disclosing the sandbox (imports, eval/exec and dunder access blocked) and the bound environment (document, slides, undo_stack, rt helpers). It does not say that execution mutates the live document, whether changes are undoable, how errors surface, or what is returned.
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?
Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the environment, then the restrictions. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.
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 single-parameter execute tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the environment but omits return values, mutation/undo semantics, and error behavior. Those gaps are material for an agent deciding whether to invoke an arbitrary-code-execution tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single `code` parameter, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names the in-scope bindings and the blocked constructs, which is exactly the information needed to write valid code. It stops short of stating that `code` is Python source text or how results are surfaced.
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 and resource: 'Execute a Python string against the live Document' tells the agent exactly what happens. It is clearly distinct from the granular siblings (document.add_slide, document.set_text, etc.), but it never explicitly says it is the escape hatch for operations those tools don't cover.
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 guidance on when to use this instead of the dozens of dedicated document.* tools, nor when to prefer script.sample. An agent must infer that this is the general-purpose scripting path; no exclusions, prerequisites or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.