LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential behaviors like error handling (e.g., invalid slide index), permissions needed, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with documents.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get the full content of a specific slide') and specifies the content retrieved. There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving slide content), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what content is returned but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This results in a score of 3, indicating clear gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with docId and slideIndex clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying slideIndex is 0-based (which is already in the schema). This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get the full content') and resource ('a specific slide'), specifying what content is retrieved (title, body text, and speaker notes). It distinguishes from siblings like presentation_list_slides (which lists slides) and presentation_get_notes (which might focus only on notes), but does not explicitly name alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like presentation_list_slides or document_read_range, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an open document handle. It implies usage by specifying what it does but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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