get_deckRetrieve a complete deck with its brief, design, motion, every slide and blocks, plus the current revision needed for apply_ops.
Returns the full deck: brief, design, motion and every slide with its blocks, plus the revision to pass to apply_ops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck_id | Yes | Deck id from create_deck or list_decks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return payload, specifically that it includes the full deck structure and the revision needed for apply_ops. It does not discuss errors, authentication, or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is a solid contribution.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states what is returned and includes the actionable revision detail at the end.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so by listing the deck components and the revision for apply_ops, which is complete enough for a simple read-only retrieval tool with one parameter.
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%, and the single parameter deck_id is fully documented in the schema as coming from create_deck or list_decks. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the full deck') and enumerates its contents: brief, design, motion, slides with blocks, and revision. It clearly distinguishes the full deck from lighter view-oriented siblings, so an agent knows exactly what this tool provides.
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 gives clear usage context by stating the returned revision is 'to pass to apply_ops', which tells the agent when this tool is needed in a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_deck_view or list_decks or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.