Create a new slide presentation (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote). Use this when asked to create a presentation, slide deck, or slideshow. Each slide has "html" content and optional "background" and "notes".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of slide objects | |
| theme | No | Theme name (default "default") | |
| title | Yes | Presentation title | |
| server_id | No | Server ID | |
| aspectRatio | No | Aspect ratio (default "16:9") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that each slide has 'html' content and optional 'background' and 'notes', which is useful data-structure context. However, it omits details about side effects, required permissions, or the response format (e.g., whether an ID is returned), leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a create operation.
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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core action, the second clarifies when to use it, and the third explains the slide object structure. No redundant words or filler.
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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and slide data structure, which is helpful. However, it fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a presentation ID or URL), which is critical for an agent to reference the created presentation later. Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not 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?
The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by explaining the slide structure (html, background, notes) which aligns with the schema's items, but it does not go beyond the schema to clarify relationships or provide additional syntax hints. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new slide presentation'. It also lists synonyms (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote) and clearly distinguishes from sibling creation tools like create_document and create_sheet by focusing on presentations. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 states 'Use this when asked to create a presentation, slide deck, or slideshow', giving explicit context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention alternatives, such as append_slides for adding slides to an existing presentation, so it stops short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: documents, sheets, slides, and servers. Even similar operations like update_sheet and update_sheet_tab are clearly separated by scope (workbook vs tab).
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_document, delete_sheet_tab, list_slides), but there are minor deviations: 'append_to_document' vs 'append_rows'/'append_slides', and 'create_slide_presentation' vs 'list_slides' use inconsistent naming lengths and pluralization.
With 23 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3–15 range but reasonable for covering three full document-type lifecycles (documents, spreadsheets, presentations) plus server listing. No tool feels redundant.
The server provides create, read, update, delete, list, and append operations for documents, sheets, and presentations, including tab-level management for spreadsheets. Minor gaps exist like no individual slide update or search across all resource types, but the core workflows are well-covered.