list_presentation_commentsList every comment from a Google Slides presentation. Use max_comments to limit the number returned for focused review.
List all comments from a Google Presentation (optional max_comments to limit results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_comments | No | ||
| presentation_id | Yes | ||
| user_google_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Input schema / properties / max_comments / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / max_comments / typeAdded value: +"integer"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful fact that all comments are returned unless max_comments is provided, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or any other behavioral nuance.
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 filler. Every phrase adds information: the action, resource, scope, and optional limiting parameter.
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 simple read-only list operation, the description plus rich annotations and an output schema cover most invocation needs. Still, the complete absence of parameter documentation in a 0%-coverage schema leaves an important gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by documenting parameters. It only explains max_comments; user_google_email and presentation_id are left entirely to inference, with no guidance on expected format (e.g., full URL vs. file ID).
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all comments from a Google Presentation'), making the operation unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_document_comments and list_spreadsheet_comments by naming the Google Presentation resource explicitly.
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 intended use is clearly implied: retrieve comments for a presentation, with an optional limit. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or when to prefer related tools such as manage_presentation_comment for mutation workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.