Create a new PowerPoint file from scratch, saving to a specified path and optionally adding a title slide.
Create a new empty PowerPoint presentation (.pptx) with an optional title slide.
Args:
file_path: Path where the presentation will be saved.
title: Optional title for the first slide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| file_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does 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 it creates a file but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting an existing file at file_path, directory creation requirements, permissions needed, or what the tool returns after creation. For a mutation-like creation tool, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single-purpose headline sentence followed by a clear Args list. There is no extraneous information, and the structure makes the parameters easy to parse. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two parameters, one required) and the description covers the core behavior: creating an empty presentation with an optional title slide. Since an output schema is present, return values are likely specified there. However, it omits practical details like overwrite behavior, which an agent might need to avoid data loss, so it's not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly documents both parameters in the Args section: file_path as the save location and title as the optional first-slide title. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare type definitions in the input schema, clarifying the purpose of each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new empty PowerPoint presentation (.pptx)'. It specifies the resource (presentation file) and action (create), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ppt_add_slide or ppt_update_slide_text by indicating it creates a new, empty presentation rather than modifying an existing one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating a new presentation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., before adding slides) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is clear from the name and description, but the guidance is minimal and implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.