office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ppt_update_notes

Update speaker notes for a specific slide in a PowerPoint file. Provide the file path, slide index, and new text to replace the notes.

Instructions

Update speaker notes for a specific slide in a PowerPoint presentation.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the PowerPoint file (.pptx).
    slide_idx: 0-based slide index.
    notes_text: Text content to set as the speaker notes.
    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>",
      "notes_text": "<notes_text>"
    },
    "name": "ppt_update_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`backup`	No
`file_path`	Yes
`slide_idx`	Yes
`notes_text`	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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a mutating side effect ('set as the speaker notes') and the backup option ('create a backup of the original file before modifying'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that existing notes are overwritten irreversibly, what happens on error, or any permission or file-state requirements.

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 one purpose sentence plus four terse, informative parameter lines. There is no filler or redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The definition covers all four parameters, the replace semantics, and backup behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It is missing only explicit sibling routing and edge-case behavior, which are not essential for invoking a simple notes-update tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args block compensates for every parameter: .pptx path, 0-based slide index, text to set, and backup behavior. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, especially the 0-based clarification and the 'before modifying' ordering. It stops short of constraints like valid slide ranges or file-existence checks.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('speaker notes'), and scope ('for a specific slide'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ppt_update_slide_text and ppt_read_notes.

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 its use context through 'for a specific slide' but never states when to choose it over alternatives such as ppt_update_slide_text or ppt_read_notes. There are no exclusions or explicit routing conditions, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name and resource type.

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