Cross-Platform PowerPoint MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between add_text_box and update_text that could cause confusion. add_text_box creates a new text box with content, while update_text modifies existing text in a shape, but both involve text manipulation on slides. Other tools like create_presentation, open_presentation, and close_presentation are clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as add_slide, get_slides, and save_presentation. The naming is predictable and uniform throughout the set, making it easy for agents to understand the action and target.
Tool Count5/5
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for PowerPoint operations, covering presentation lifecycle, slide management, and text editing. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count is appropriate for the domain, allowing comprehensive control without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for core PowerPoint tasks, including CRUD operations for presentations and slides, and text manipulation. However, there are minor gaps, such as missing tools for adding images, shapes, or charts, and no direct way to delete slides or shapes, which agents might need to work around.
Average 3.1/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'close a presentation' and a 'save' parameter, but doesn't explain what closing does (e.g., ends editing session, releases resources, potential data loss if not saved), permissions required, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear header and bullet points for args and returns, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Returns' line is redundant given the output schema, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics and states the tool's purpose. However, as a mutation tool (implied by 'close'), it lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and interaction with siblings, making it minimally viable but incomplete. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. It adds basic meaning by explaining 'presentation_id' as 'ID of the presentation' and 'save' as 'Whether to save changes before closing', which clarifies intent beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID format) or deeper context (e.g., default behavior implications), resulting in adequate but incomplete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('close') and resource ('presentation'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_presentation' or explain what 'closing' entails versus saving or other operations, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'save_presentation' or 'open_presentation'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must the presentation be open first?) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list of slides but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, using clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' It avoids unnecessary details and gets straight to the point. However, the 'Returns' section could be more specific, and there's slight room for improvement in efficiency, keeping it from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'presentation_id' is the 'ID of the presentation,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage, this doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as format or constraints. The baseline is 3 since the schema handles the structure, but the description provides only basic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of all slides in a presentation.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('slides in a presentation'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_slide_text' or 'get_presentations', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_slide_text' for slide content or 'get_presentations' for listing presentations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an open presentation. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates text, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. It uses minimal sentences efficiently, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is moderately complete. It explains the basic operation and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'ID of the presentation'), adding basic meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'numeric string' for slide_id) or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the text content of a shape.' This specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('text content of a shape'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add_text_box' or 'set_slide_title', which might handle similar text operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add_text_box' or 'set_slide_title'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a presentation and returns metadata, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure (e.g., if PowerPoint isn't running), or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the action and one for the return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence about returns could be omitted since an output schema exists, making it slightly redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) that's crucial for a creation tool without annotations. It doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but that's appropriate here. It does mention the return value ('Dictionary containing new presentation ID and metadata'), which provides useful output semantics, though an output schema exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Create a new PowerPoint presentation' with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('PowerPoint presentation'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'open_presentation' or 'get_presentations' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'initialize_powerpoint' might also involve creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether PowerPoint must be initialized first), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing presentations), or direct alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'open_presentation' for existing ones). The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool returns information but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (read-only), if it requires specific permissions, potential errors, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a tool that might query system or application state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. There's no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from returns, but it's still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it lacks context about when to use it and behavioral details. For a simple info-retrieval tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in usage guidance and transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but that's acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about the current platform and available PowerPoint adapters.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('platform and adapter information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_presentations' or 'get_slides', which also retrieve information but about different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether PowerPoint must be initialized), typical use cases (e.g., checking compatibility before other operations), or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves text content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or whether it works on closed presentations. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose with usage). It's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read operation), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return value. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values extensively. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. It lists both parameters (presentation_id and slide_id) and explains their roles, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID structure) or constraints, partially compensating for the low coverage but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all text content in a slide' specifies the verb (get) and resource (text content in a slide). It distinguishes from siblings like get_slides (which lists slides) or update_text (which modifies text), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_slides (for slide metadata) or update_text (for editing). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns: Status of initialization and platform information,' which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it fails to describe critical aspects such as whether this is a one-time setup call, if it requires specific permissions or authentication, potential side effects (e.g., establishing a session), or error handling. For a connection-initialization tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the return information into the first sentence, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a connection initialization with potential side effects), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and return values, and an output schema exists to detail the return structure. However, with no annotations and missing behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, session management), it doesn't fully prepare the agent for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings that might handle similar tasks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's no need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Initialize connection to PowerPoint.' This specifies the verb ('initialize') and resource ('connection to PowerPoint'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_platform_info' or 'open_presentation', which might have overlapping initialization aspects, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether it must be called before other tools), exclusions, or relationships with siblings like 'get_platform_info' or 'open_presentation'. This lack of context leaves the agent uncertain about optimal usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a presentation and returns a dictionary with ID and metadata, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it modifies the file, error handling for invalid paths, or what happens if PowerPoint isn't running. For a file operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter/return details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value: the opening statement defines the action, and the Args/Returns sections provide essential usage information without redundancy. Minor improvements could include integrating the structure more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (file opening with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the parameter and return type at a high level, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, side effects) and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that 'path' is a 'Full path to the PowerPoint file (.pptx, .ppt)', clarifying file types and format expectations. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail path syntax (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open') and resource ('PowerPoint presentation from the specified path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_presentation' (new file) and 'get_presentations' (list existing), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description avoids tautology by providing specific details beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether PowerPoint must be initialized first), when not to use it (e.g., for non-PowerPoint files), or clarify its role relative to siblings like 'get_presentations' (which might list presentations without opening them). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'open' means (e.g., currently loaded in memory vs. saved files). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a list') and resource. There's no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'open' entails, metadata structure), which would help an agent use it correctly alongside siblings. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of all open PowerPoint presentations with their metadata', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_slides' or 'get_slide_text', which also retrieve presentation-related information but with different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether PowerPoint must be initialized), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_slides' (which retrieves slide-level data) or 'open_presentation' (which might be needed first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation saves to disk and returns a status, but lacks details on permissions needed, file format (e.g., .pptx, .pdf), error handling, or whether it overwrites existing files. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the subsequent lines explain parameters and output without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and an output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and moderate complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a write operation with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context like file system interactions or error conditions. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps remain in operational transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'presentation_id' is explained as 'ID of the presentation', and 'path' is clarified as 'Optional path to save the file (if None, save to current location)'. This provides practical usage information beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify path format (absolute/relative) or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Save a presentation to disk', specifying both the verb (save) and resource (presentation). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_presentation' or 'open_presentation' by focusing on saving to storage. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential file export tools that might exist elsewhere.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the presentation must be open or created first), nor does it compare with sibling tools like 'close_presentation' or 'update_text' for related operations. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Set the title text' implying a mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are immediate or require saving, error conditions, or what 'Status of the operation' entails. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with three straightforward parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 params), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema handles return values, so the description's 'Status of the operation' is sufficient, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists all three parameters with brief explanations ('ID of the presentation', 'ID of the slide (numeric string)', 'New title text'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond 'numeric string' for slide_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the title text') and resource ('of a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_text' by specifying it's for slide titles specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'update_text' or 'add_text_box'. It mentions required parameters but doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action is an 'Add' (implying mutation) but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are saved automatically, error conditions, or rate limits. The return statement is vague ('Information about the new slide') without detailing format or content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for layout types efficiently. It's appropriately sized, though the 'etc...' in layout types is slightly vague. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's vague return statement is acceptable. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or error handling. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing usage and transparency elements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'presentation_id' as 'ID of the presentation' and provides detailed semantics for 'layout_type' with default values and layout mappings (e.g., '1: ppLayoutTitle (title slide)'), which are not in the schema. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Add a new slide') and resource ('to the presentation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_presentation' (creates entire presentation) or 'set_slide_title' (modifies existing slide). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the presentation must be open/loaded), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_presentation' for starting from scratch or 'get_slides' for viewing existing slides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a write operation ('Add') and specifies the return value ('Operation status and ID of the new shape'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent/reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter documentation is well-structured but could be more concise by combining related position parameters. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 7-parameter write operation with no annotations, the description does well by explaining all parameters and the return value. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters with clear explanations. It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that 'slide_id' is a 'numeric string', positions are in 'points', and describing what each parameter controls (e.g., 'Left edge position of the text box').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Add a text box to a slide') and resource ('slide'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_slide' (which adds slides) and 'update_text' (which modifies existing text). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'set_slide_title' or 'update_text'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation) or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying existing text boxes). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Powerpoint_MCP_CrossPlatform MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vancealexander/Powerpoint_MCP_CrossPlatform/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vancealexander/Powerpoint_MCP_CrossPlatform)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Powerpoint_MCP_CrossPlatform MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vancealexander/Powerpoint_MCP_CrossPlatform/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vancealexander/Powerpoint_MCP_CrossPlatform)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vancealexander/Powerpoint_MCP_CrossPlatform'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server