Extract all text and table data from a specific PowerPoint slide by providing the file path and slide index.
Read all text content and table data from a specific slide in a PowerPoint presentation.
Args:
file_path: Path to the PowerPoint file.
slide_idx: 0-based index of the slide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | ||
| slide_idx | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read scope ('all text content and table data') but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, mention error handling for invalid slide indices, or describe the output format beyond the existence of an output schema. The description adds some context about the read scope but lacks detail on side effects or limitations.
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 sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear bullet list of arguments. The key purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: it defines the parameters and what is read. It does not cover when to use it versus alternatives (scored under usage guidelines) or error behavior, but the core invocation details are complete. The output schema covers return format, so the description need not repeat that.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that file_path is the path to the PowerPoint file and specifies that slide_idx is 0-based, which is critical for correct invocation. This is valuable semantic information not present in the input schema.
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 a specific verb 'Read' with a precise resource ('all text content and table data from a specific slide in a PowerPoint presentation'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ppt_read_notes (which reads notes) and ppt_search (which searches), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where other tools (e.g., ppt_get_outline for an outline) would be more appropriate. The usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.