Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ai-slides-mcp

ai-slides-mcp

by vuhai2002
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

build_pptx

Combine image files into a full-bleed PowerPoint presentation with customizable aspect ratio.

Instructions

Assemble existing image files into a full-bleed PowerPoint deck.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "image_paths": "<image_paths>"
    },
    "name": "build_pptx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
image_pathsYes
out_pathNodeck.pptx
aspectNo16:9

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'full-bleed' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., margins, image scaling). No details on ordering, resizing, or file handling, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks essential detail. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, so it does not earn a higher score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain critical aspects like image order, aspect ratio handling, output location, or potential errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters or their semantics. The agent must rely solely on parameter names (image_paths, out_path, aspect) which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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: 'Assemble existing image files into a full-bleed PowerPoint deck.' The verb 'assemble' and resource 'existing image files' give a specific action, and it is distinct from sibling tools like generate_image or styled_deck, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 like branded_deck or generate_slide_deck. The description does not include context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools