LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and efficiency focus ('token-efficient overview'), but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or error handling. This is a moderate gap for a read operation without annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage context but could improve by hinting at output structure (e.g., list of slides with indices/titles) or error cases, which would make it a 5.

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 one parameter 'docId' fully documented in the schema as 'Document handle returned by document_open'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'all slides in a presentation' with specific outputs 'index and title'. It distinguishes from siblings like presentation_get_slide (gets single slide content) and presentation_get_notes (gets notes), focusing on a token-efficient overview rather than detailed content.

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 clear context for usage: 'Token-efficient overview before reading content', implying this tool is for initial scanning rather than detailed analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like presentation_get_slide for detailed content, which would elevate it to a 5.

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