office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ppt_add_chart

Add a native Excel-backed chart to a PowerPoint slide by specifying chart type, categories, and series data. Supports column, bar, line, pie, and area charts.

Instructions

Add a native Excel-backed chart to a slide in a PowerPoint presentation.

Supported chart types:
- 'column_clustered', 'column_stacked', 'column_stacked_100'
- 'bar_clustered', 'bar_stacked', 'bar_stacked_100'
- 'line', 'line_markers', 'line_stacked'
- 'pie', 'pie_exploded', 'doughnut'
- 'area', 'area_stacked'

Args:
    file_path: Path to the PowerPoint file (.pptx).
    slide_idx: 0-based index of the slide.
    chart_type: Chart type name (e.g., 'column_clustered', 'line', 'pie', 'bar_clustered').
    categories: Category labels along the category axis (e.g. ['Q1', 'Q2', 'Q3', 'Q4']).
    series_data: List of series dicts, each with 'name' (str) and 'values' (list of numbers).
                 Example: [{'name': 'Revenue', 'values': [100, 120, 140, 160]}]
    title: Optional chart title.
    left: Left offset position in inches (default: 1.0).
    top: Top offset position in inches (default: 1.5).
    width: Chart width in inches (default: 8.0).
    height: Chart height in inches (default: 4.5).
    backup: If True, create a backup of the original file before modifying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No
`left`	No
`title`	No
`width`	No
`backup`	No
`height`	No
`file_path`	Yes
`slide_idx`	Yes
`categories`	Yes
`chart_type`	Yes
`series_data`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 discloses modification behavior through the backup option ('create a backup of the original file before modifying') and documents the complete set of supported chart types. However, it does not explicitly state whether the file is saved in place, what happens on invalid slide indexes, or any permission requirements, leaving some important behavioral details unstated.

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 well-structured and efficient: a lead sentence, a formatted list of supported chart types, and a clear Args block. There is no fluff; each section directly supports correct invocation. The usability is high despite the length, which is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, the description covers all of them, including examples and defaults, and lists the full chart-type enumeration. An output schema is present, so return values don't need explanation. The only gaps are edge-case behaviors (e.g., missing file, invalid slide index) and explicit note that the file is saved, which are absent but not critical for successful invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with types, defaults, and meaningful examples (e.g., series_data includes a concrete dict example, categories shows an example list, chart_type lists all valid values). This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Add a native Excel-backed chart to a slide in a PowerPoint presentation.' This distinctly separates the tool from siblings like ppt_add_slide, ppt_add_table, and ppt_add_flowchart. The included list of supported chart types further clarifies the exact scope of the tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through its purpose statement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. With many sibling tools present, an explicit routing statement would have been helpful. The guidance is only implied, not direct.

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