Update a slide presentation (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote): title, slide data, theme, or aspect ratio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Presentation ID | |
| data | No | Full replacement array of slide objects | |
| theme | No | New theme | |
| title | No | New title | |
| aspectRatio | No | New aspect ratio |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It states 'update' but does not disclose that the data parameter is a full replacement, what happens if fields are omitted, or whether changes are destructive. The schema mentions 'full replacement array' but the description itself lacks such context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and main parameters. It is concise and contains no redundant information, though the parenthetical synonyms are slightly extra but still useful.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain behavioral context and return values. It does neither. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks important details like whether data replaces all slides and what the tool returns after the update.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists parameter names (title, slide data, theme, aspect ratio) without adding additional meaning or usage details beyond the 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 the tool updates a slide presentation and lists the updatable aspects (title, slide data, theme, aspect ratio). It distinguishes itself from create/delete/get by using 'update' and from append_slides by implying full modification rather than appending. However, it does not explicitly name sibling 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 append_slides for adding slides or create_slide_presentation for new presentations. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.
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.