office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ppt_add_table

Add a data table to a chosen slide in a PowerPoint file, specifying dimensions, cell text, position, and size. Optionally back up the original file before editing.

Instructions

Add a table to a specific slide in a PowerPoint presentation.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the PowerPoint file (.pptx).
    slide_idx: 0-based index of the slide.
    rows: Number of table rows.
    cols: Number of table columns.
    data: Optional 2D list of cell text values.
    left: Left offset position in inches (default: 1.0).
    top: Top offset position in inches (default: 2.0).
    width: Table width in inches (default: 8.0).
    height: Table height in inches (default: 4.0).
    backup: If True, create a backup of the original file before modifying.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "slide_idx": "<slide_idx>",
      "rows": "<rows>",
      "cols": "<cols>"
    },
    "name": "ppt_add_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No
`cols`	Yes
`data`	No
`left`	No
`rows`	Yes
`width`	No
`backup`	No
`height`	No
`file_path`	Yes
`slide_idx`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses mutation via the backup parameter description ('create a backup of the original file before modifying') but does not elaborate on the modification process, potential overwrites, or return value behavior. It gives some transparency but lacks depth on side effects.

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 efficient: a single sentence states purpose, followed by a parameter list. No redundant text. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter descriptions are terse but informative. Slight room for improvement in grouping or highlighting the mutation aspect.

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?

With 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and mentions the backup option. It does not mention error handling or constraints (e.g., positive rows/cols), but the output schema (though not provided) may cover return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by providing clear semantic meaning for every parameter: file_path, slide_idx, rows, cols, data, left, top, width, height, and backup. It explains units (inches), defaults, and optionality, going well beyond the schema's type-only info.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a table to a specific slide in a PowerPoint presentation.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ppt_add_chart and ppt_add_flowchart by naming the exact object type. No ambiguity.

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 states what it does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., when a chart is needed instead). It provides context for adding a table to a slide but no exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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