office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ppt_add_flowchart

Add an editable flowchart or architecture diagram to a PowerPoint slide from Mermaid code. Converts Mermaid syntax into native PowerPoint shapes and arrows that remain fully editable.

Instructions

Add an editable flowchart or architecture diagram to a PowerPoint slide using Mermaid syntax.

Nodes are rendered as native PowerPoint shapes (Rounded Rectangles, Diamonds for conditions,
Ovals/Stadiums) connected by native connector arrows with arrowheads.
All text, colors, shapes, and layouts remain 100% editable inside PowerPoint.

Supported Mermaid Syntax:
- Direction: 'graph TD' / 'flowchart TD' (Top-Down), 'graph LR' / 'flowchart LR' (Left-Right)
- Box node: `NodeID[Node Label]`
- Rounded node: `NodeID(Node Label)`
- Condition/Decision node: `NodeID{Condition Label}`
- Stadium/Pill node: `NodeID([Label])`
- Line breaks in labels: `<br/>` or `\n`
- Arrows: `A --> B`, `A -->|label| B`, `A --- B`, `A ==> B`, `A -.-> B`
- Chain connections: `A --> B --> C`

Args:
    file_path: Path to the PowerPoint file (.pptx).
    slide_idx: 0-based index of the slide (auto-creates slide if presentation is empty).
    mermaid_code: Mermaid diagram code string.
    title: Optional slide title to display at the top.
    direction: Layout direction: 'auto' (detect from code), 'TD' (Top-Down), or 'LR' (Left-Right).
    left: Left margin offset in inches (default: 0.8).
    top: Top margin offset in inches (default: 1.6).
    width: Total width allocated for diagram in inches (default: 8.4).
    height: Total height allocated for diagram in inches (default: 5.0).
    backup: If True, create a backup of the original file before modifying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`top`	No
`left`	No
`title`	No
`width`	No
`backup`	No
`height`	No
`direction`	No	auto
`file_path`	Yes
`slide_idx`	Yes
`mermaid_code`	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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses substantial behavior: nodes become native PowerPoint shapes with native connector arrows, output remains 100% editable, slide_idx auto-creates a slide for empty presentations, and backup controls file backup before modification. It does not disclose failure modes for invalid Mermaid code or effects on existing slide content, but the key behavioral traits are squarely covered.

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 long but well-structured: purpose first, then rendering/editability guarantees, then the Mermaid syntax reference, then parameter docs. Every block earns its place for a tool that accepts a DSL and 10 parameters, though the syntax list could be marginally tightened without loss.

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 high-complexity tool with a DSL input, 10 parameters, and an existing output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description is nearly complete: purpose, rendering behavior, editability guarantees, syntax variants, and all parameter semantics are covered. Minor gaps are error behavior for invalid Mermaid code and how the diagram scales or wraps within the given width/height.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does fully. The Args section documents all 10 parameters with units (inches), defaults (0.8, 1.6, 8.4, 5.0), and semantic details (0-based slide_idx, direction values 'auto'/'TD'/'LR', backup flag behavior). Nothing in the schema leaves the agent guessing.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Add an editable flowchart or architecture diagram to a PowerPoint slide using Mermaid syntax.' This clearly states what it does and differentiates it from content-creation siblings like ppt_add_table and ppt_add_chart by the artifact type and the DSL used.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement or exclusions. The use case is strongly implied by the purpose statement, and the extensive supported-syntax list tells an agent what inputs are valid, but the description never says 'use X instead for Y' or names a sibling as an alternative.

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