render_previewGenerate PNG images of slides in final, fully revealed state to visually check deck design. Specify a deck and up to six slides.
PNG images of slides in their final state (all steps revealed). Use it to check the design visually.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck_id | Yes | Deck id from create_deck or list_decks | |
| slide_ids | No | Slides to render, default the first four |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior: output is raster PNG imagery and reveal/animation steps are collapsed into their final state, which an agent needs to know before interpreting results.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the output type is front-loaded so the agent knows immediately what is returned. Slightly terse on routing detail, but nothing is wasted.
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 correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the format (PNG) and the slide state. What an agent needs to call and interpret it is largely present; only alternative-tool routing is absent.
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%: deck_id's source (create_deck/list_decks) and slide_ids' bounds and 'default first four' behavior are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States the concrete output (PNG images of slides) and clarifies the rendering mode ('final state, all steps revealed'), which distinguishes it from an animated/step view. It is clear about what the tool produces, though it never names the sibling it differs from (e.g., get_deck_view), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
'Use it to check the design visually' gives one intended use case, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_deck_view or get_deck, and no exclusions (e.g., don't use for content verification) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.