get_presentationRetrieve details about a Google Slides presentation by providing the presentation ID and user's Google email address.
Get details about a Google Slides presentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_google_email | Yes | The user's Google email address. Required. | |
| presentation_id | Yes | The ID of the presentation to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.21.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide. It only repeats the read-only nature (readOnlyHint=true) and offers no additional context such as permissions, rate limits, or data scope. The description is essentially redundant with the annotations and name.
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 sentence that communicates the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.
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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and the presence of an output schema, the minimal description is largely sufficient. The tool is straightforward and the schema/annotations cover most contextual needs. The only missing piece is guidance on appropriate use cases, but that is already accounted for in the usage guidelines score.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description does not mention or elaborate on any parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.
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 tool's function: 'Get details about a Google Slides presentation.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'Google Slides presentation' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_page or get_drive_file_content, which also retrieve presentation-related data.
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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a tool with many sibling tools, the absence of usage guidance is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.