What can you do with this server?

This server provides Git-based version control and deployment management for HTML presentations, with Google Workspace integration for authentication and publishing. * Create/Update presentations: Add new HTML decks (with title, optional tags, and owner) or update existing ones; each change creates a new Git commit, preserving full history. Supports large decks via file uploads and chunked content for model-generated presentations. HTML is normalized (fragments wrapped into full documents). * Retrieve/List presentations: Fetch the latest (HEAD) or any historical version by commit SHA. List all saved decks, optionally filtered by owner. * Version control features: View the commit history of a presentation and perform non-destructive rollbacks (a new commit that restores an earlier version). * Deploy to Google Apps Script: Publish a specific commit as a web app with idempotent deployments (same commit returns existing URL). Supports configurable access levels (domain, anyone, etc.) and applies sandbox-safe HTML transformations. * Authentication & identity: Over HTTP, enforces Google Workspace login with domain restriction; the authenticated email automatically becomes the owner. In stdio mode, no authentication context is available, suitable for local use. * Additional capabilities: Check deployment status (URL, script ID, etc.), manage metadata (tags/titles), and use configurable local Git storage. Environment variables allow further customization.

Which integrations are available for this server?

Allows deploying HTML presentations as Google Apps Script web apps, including deployment status queries and idempotent publication of specific versions.

How do I use bitacora-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@bitacora-mcp Create a presentation titled 'Q3 Review' with HTML Q3 Results" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

bitacora-mcp

by Bidcomsrl

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

bitacora-mcp

MCP server en NestJS para crear, versionar, recuperar y publicar presentaciones HTML dirigidas a directivos y PO de Bidcom. Los decks se persisten versionados y se publican en Google Workspace vía Google Apps Script, con una URL estable, editable y con historial.

Qué hace

18 tools para crear, editar, versionar, buscar, comparar, validar y publicar presentaciones HTML (ver tabla completa más abajo).
Dos backends de store, switch via env vars:
- git (default): filesystem local, single-user — ideal para desarrollo
- mongodb: multi-user, AWS-ready — para deployment centralizado
OAuth de Google Workspace restringido a bidcom.com.ar (login real, no texto libre). Sesiones persistidas en SQLite o MongoDB.
Publicación en Apps Script con idempotencia por commit + access, reintentos con backoff exponencial, y historial completo de publicaciones.
Validación pre-deploy que unifica chequeos de sandbox + estructura HTML.

Related MCP server: marp-agent-mcp

Prerequisitos

Node 22 (usa --env-file nativo, sin dependencia de dotenv)
MongoDB 7+ (solo si vas a usar DECK_STORE=mongodb o OAUTH_STORE=mongodb)
Docker (para levantar MongoDB local fácilmente)

Setup inicial

git clone <repo> bitacora-mcp
cd bitacora-mcp
npm install
npm run build

Configuración

Copiá el template de environment y llená los valores:

cp .env.example .env

Editá .env con los valores correspondientes (el archivo está en .gitignore, no se commitea). Los campos obligatorios dependen del modo de uso:

Para usar desde Claude Desktop local sin login de Google, no hace falta .env ni credenciales. Las tools corren con owner libre (texto):

npm start          # levanta el server por stdio

Requiere credenciales de OAuth en GCP (ver más abajo). Llená en .env:

GOOGLE_WORKSPACE_CLIENT_ID=<client-id>
GOOGLE_WORKSPACE_CLIENT_SECRET=<client-secret>
JWT_SECRET=<openssl rand -hex 32>

npm run start:http # levanta el server por HTTP en http://localhost:3030

Store: git (default) o MongoDB

# Para usar MongoDB (multi-user, AWS-ready):
DECK_STORE=mongodb
OAUTH_STORE=mongodb
MONGODB_URI=mongodb://localhost:27017/bitacora

Si no seteás estas vars, el server usa git + SQLite (filesystem local).

Credenciales de Google (setup una sola vez)

Hay dos OAuth clients distintos en el mismo proyecto GCP:

1. OAuth client "Desktop app" — para deployar en Apps Script

Google Cloud Console → proyecto (nuevo o existente)
Habilitar Google Apps Script API (APIs & Services → Library)
Credentials → Create Credentials → OAuth client ID → Desktop app
Descargar JSON → ~/.bitacora-google/oauth-client.json
Correr el consent flow:
```
npm run build
npm run google:authorize
```
Abre el navegador, pedí consent, cachea el refresh token en ~/.bitacora-google/token.json. Se refresca solo.

En el mismo proyecto GCP → Credentials → Create Credentials → OAuth client ID
Tipo: Web application (no Desktop app — ese no tiene redirect URIs editables)
Authorized redirect URIs: http://localhost:3030/auth/callback

Anotá Client ID y Client Secret → van en .env:

GOOGLE_WORKSPACE_CLIENT_ID=<este>
GOOGLE_WORKSPACE_CLIENT_SECRET=<este>

Levantar MongoDB local (para modo MongoDB)

docker run -d --name bitacora-mongo -p 27017:27017 mongo:7

MongoDB queda en mongodb://localhost:27017. Seteá en .env:

DECK_STORE=mongodb
OAUTH_STORE=mongodb
MONGODB_URI=mongodb://localhost:27017/bitacora

Pruebas locales

Smoke test (sin credenciales de Google)

Corre las 18 tools end-to-end contra un cliente de Apps Script mockeado:

# Modo git (default)
npm run smoke

# Modo MongoDB
DECK_STORE=mongodb MONGODB_URI=mongodb://localhost:27017/bitacora-smoke npm run smoke

Los 48 tests cubren: create → update → rollback → deploy → unpublish → list_deployments, diff, search, archive, validate, fragment update, y cargas chunked/from-file.

Probar con MCP Inspector

Levantá el server HTTP:
```
npm run build
npm run start:http
```
En otra terminal, abrí el Inspector:
```
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector
```
En el Inspector: Add Server → Streamable HTTP → URL: http://localhost:3030/mcp
Al llamar una tool, se abre el navegador para login de Google Workspace. Logueate con tu cuenta @bidcom.com.ar.
Las tools van a usar tu email real como owner automáticamente.

Probar con Claude Desktop

Configurá claude_desktop_config.json (en ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/ en macOS):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bitacora-remote": {
      "url": "http://localhost:3030/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Reiniciá Claude Desktop (Cmd+Q y volver a abrir).
Pedile a Claude: "Mostrame las presentaciones que tengo" — debería disparar el flujo OAuth la primera vez y listar tus decks.

Sesión persistente: si ya te logueaste desde el Inspector, Claude Desktop reusa esa sesión (SQLite/MongoDB la persiste). Para forzar el flujo OAuth desde cero, borrá el store de sesiones: rm ~/.bitacora-store/oauth.db (SQLite) o limpiá las colecciones oauth_* en MongoDB.

Para uso local sin login de Google, stdio es más simple:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bitacora": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/RUTA/ABSOLUTA/bitacora-mcp/dist/main.js"],
      "env": {
        "DECK_STORE_DIR": "/RUTA/ABSOLUTA/deck-store",
        "DECK_STORE": "git"
      }
    }
  }
}

O con MongoDB:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bitacora": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/RUTA/ABSOLUTA/bitacora-mcp/dist/main.js"],
      "env": {
        "DECK_STORE": "mongodb",
        "MONGODB_URI": "mongodb://localhost:27017/bitacora"
      }
    }
  }
}

Tools (18)

Versionado (13)

Tool	Qué hace
`presentation_create`	Crea un deck y lo guarda versionado. Devuelve `id` + `version`. Con `partial: true`, reserva el `id` y guarda el HTML recibido como primer chunk sin comitear nada — hay que cerrar con `presentation_append`.
`presentation_create_from_file`	Igual que `presentation_create`, pero lee el HTML de un archivo local (`path` absoluto) en vez de tomarlo como argumento. Para decks grandes o con base64 embebido.
`presentation_append`	Agrega un chunk de HTML a una carga iniciada con `presentation_create({partial: true})`. `done: true` en el último chunk cierra, valida y comitea el deck completo.
`presentation_update`	Nueva versión con HTML y/o metadata nuevos. Con `fragment: true`, inyecta el HTML antes de `</body>` sin reemplazar el documento completo.
`presentation_update_from_file`	Igual que `presentation_update`, pero lee el HTML nuevo de un archivo local.
`presentation_get`	HTML + metadata en HEAD o en un `version` histórico. La descripción le pide al asistente mostrar el `html` como Artifact.
`presentation_list`	Lista los decks, filtrable por `owner`. Excluye archivados por defecto (`includeArchived: true` para verlos).
`presentation_list_versions`	Historial de commits/versiones de un deck.
`presentation_rollback`	Vuelve a un `version` anterior creando una versión nueva (no destructivo).
`presentation_search`	Búsqueda full-text sobre título, tags y contenido HTML. Devuelve matches con snippet y `matchedIn`.
`presentation_diff`	Dif textual + visual HTML side-by-side entre dos versiones. Resuelve "¿qué cambió entre la versión que aprobó el director y la actual?".
`presentation_archive`	Soft-delete no destructivo: marca el deck como archivado, lo saca de `list`/`search`.
`presentation_unarchive`	Restaura un deck archivado.
`presentation_validate`	Reporte estructurado pre-deploy: DOCTYPE, mixed content, `<base target>`, charset, viewport, scripts inline, event handlers, múltiples `<body>`. Devuelve `canDeploy`.

Publicación (5)

Tool	Qué hace
`presentation_deploy`	Publica un `version` (default HEAD) como web app de Apps Script. `access` opcional controla quién puede verla (`MYSELF`/`DOMAIN`/`ANYONE`/`ANYONE_ANONYMOUS`, default `DOMAIN`). Idempotente por commit + access.
`presentation_get_deployment`	Devuelve el estado de publicación actual (commit, scriptId, deploymentId, url).
`presentation_list_deployments`	Historial completo de publicaciones por deck (incluye despublicadas), para auditoría.
`presentation_unpublish`	Despublica: borra el deployment de Apps Script (la URL deja de servir), marca el registro con `unpublishedAt`. No destructivo.
`presentation_get_deployment`	Estado de publicación actual de un deck.

Decks grandes

Dos problemas distintos, dos soluciones distintas:

1. El HTML ya existe como archivo en disco → create_from_file / update_from_file. El server lo lee directo del filesystem, byte a byte. El modelo nunca reproduce el contenido, así que no importa cuán grande sea ni si tiene base64 embebido.

2. El HTML lo está generando el modelo y no entra en una sola tool call → create({partial: true}) + append por chunks. Recién en done: true se normaliza y comitea, igual que un create de una sola llamada.

Arquitectura

src/
  core/                    # DeckService (normalize/escHtml), DeckValidateService
  store/                   # DeckStore interface + GitSpecStore | MongoDeckStore
  auth/                    # WorkspaceDomainGuard, SqliteOAuthStore, MongoOAuthStore
  presentations/           # PresentationsService + Controller (13 tools), PendingUpload
  deployer/               # AppsScriptClient (real/mock), SandboxTransform, DeployerService (5 tools)
  shared-tools.module.ts  # controllers + providers, importado por stdio y HTTP
  app.module.ts            # bootstrap stdio (sin auth)
  http-app.module.ts       # bootstrap HTTP (con OAuth de Workspace)
  main.ts / main-http.ts   # entry points

Dos modos de store, dos modos de auth:

Componente	Default (local)	MongoDB (multi-user/AWS)
Decks	`GitSpecStore` (filesystem)	`MongoDeckStore` (colección `decks`)
OAuth sessions	`SqliteOAuthStore` (archivo)	`MongoOAuthStore` (colecciones `oauth_*`)

Switch via DECK_STORE y OAUTH_STORE env vars.

Notas de stack

@rekog/mcp-nest v2 — API McpStrategy + @McpController
@rekog/mcp-nest-auth v2 — servidor de autorización OAuth 2.1/MCP embebido (McpAuthModule + GoogleOAuthProvider)
Node 22 con --env-file=.env nativo (sin dotenv)
mongodb driver oficial (sin Mongoose ni ODM)
simple-git para el store git, better-sqlite3 para el store de sesiones
zod v4 para schemas de las tools
TypeScript 7.x, module/moduleResolution: nodenext

Available Tools

8 tools

presentation_createA

Crea una presentación HTML y la guarda versionada en el store. No la publica (deploy es Fase 2). Devuelve id y versión (commit SHA).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`html`	Yes	HTML de la presentación. Puede ser un documento completo o un fragment.
`tags`	No	Etiquetas opcionales.
`owner`	No	Identidad dueña del deck. En Fase 1 es libre; en Fase 3 sale del OAuth.	local
`title`	Yes	Título de la presentación.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the presentation is saved versioned (implying each call creates a new version/commit) and not published, and it returns id and commit SHA. This adds value beyond the schema, though it omits details like authentication 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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action, includes the key boundary (no deploy), and states the return value. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essential return values (id and commit SHA) and the phase distinction. It could further clarify handling of duplicate titles, but 'versionada' strongly implies new-version creation, making it sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., html can be a full document or fragment). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool creates an HTML presentation and saves it versioned in the store. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling presentation_deploy by stating 'No la publica (deploy es Fase 2)', making the scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: it creates and versions, and notably excludes deployment by mentioning deploy is Phase 2. This implies when to use this tool versus deploy, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like presentation_update for modifying existing presentations.

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

presentation_deployA

Publica una versión (commit) de una presentación como web app de Apps Script y devuelve su URL. Idempotente por versión: si ese commit ya está publicado, devuelve la URL existente sin volver a deployar.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID del deck a publicar.
`version`	No	SHA de commit a publicar. Si se omite, publica el HEAD actual.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states idempotency by version and the behavior of returning the existing URL without redeploying. This adds meaningful context about side effects and repeatability.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds the idempotency behavior. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and output (URL), which is sufficient for a simple deploy action. No output schema exists, but the URL return is stated. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a clear understanding.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides for the 'version' and 'id' parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Publica') and resource ('una presentación como web app de Apps Script'), clearly stating the action and return value (URL). It distinguishes from siblings like presentation_get_deployment and presentation_rollback by focusing on the deployment action.

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 usage (to publish a version as a web app) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like presentation_get_deployment or presentation_rollback. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

presentation_getA

Devuelve el HTML y la metadata de una presentación. Por defecto la versión actual (HEAD); con "version" (SHA) devuelve esa versión histórica.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID del deck.
`version`	No	SHA de commit. Si se omite, devuelve la versión actual (HEAD).

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default HEAD behavior, historical version retrieval, and return content (HTML and metadata), which is useful. However, it does not specify what 'metadata' includes, error behavior for invalid IDs/SHAs, or any authentication/permission requirements, leaving gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the version-specific behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (two params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the primary purpose, return type, and version selection behavior. It could be more complete by detailing the metadata structure or error conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% because both id and version have descriptions in the input schema. The description largely repeats the version param semantics already present in the schema ('SHA', 'HEAD'), adding minimal extra meaning beyond what the structured schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a clear resource ('el HTML y la metadata de una presentación'), while also distinguishing version behavior (HEAD vs a historical SHA). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like presentation_list_versions, which lists versions, and presentation_get_deployment, which fetches deployment info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states when to use the version parameter: omit it for the current HEAD, or provide a SHA for a historical version. It gives clear context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

presentation_get_deploymentA

Devuelve el estado de publicación actual de una presentación (commit, scriptId, deploymentId, url).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID del deck.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the returned fields, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions or error conditions. The name 'get' suggests safety, but it is not explicit.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It states exactly what is returned with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the return fields and clear purpose. It could mention edge cases (e.g., no deployment yet), but is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' with 'ID del deck.' The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 description clearly states the tool returns the current deployment state of a presentation, listing specific fields (commit, scriptId, deploymentId, url). This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like presentation_deploy or presentation_get.

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 when to use this tool (to check deployment status) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No clear guidance on choosing between this and presentation_get or presentation_list_versions.

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

presentation_listA

Lista las presentaciones guardadas, opcionalmente filtradas por dueño.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owner`	No	Filtrar por dueño (opcional).

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions listing and optional filtering. It does not disclose return format, pagination, sorting, or side effects. Since it is a read-only list operation, the lack of detail is somewhat acceptable, but the burden is on the description and it falls short of full transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and filter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core function and filter, but it does not clarify whether the response contains full presentation objects or summaries, or if pagination applies. These minor gaps prevent a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already documents the single 'owner' parameter at 100% coverage with a description ('Filtrar por dueño (opcional)'). The tool description merely repeats this optional filter without adding any new semantic detail, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 description clearly states the action ('Lista las presentaciones guardadas') and the resource (presentations). The optional owner filter is mentioned, and the scope 'guardadas' distinguishes it from version-listing or other operations.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'Lista' and the mention of an optional owner filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as presentation_get or presentation_list_versions. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

presentation_list_versionsA

Lista el historial de versiones (commits) de una presentación, del más nuevo al más viejo.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID del deck.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey that this is a read-only operation. The verb 'Lista' implies no mutation, and the ordering is disclosed. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require any permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Lista'. It is concise and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input resource, and ordering of results. It does not need to detail return values for a straightforward list operation, especially given the schema covers the input.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a description 'ID del deck.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 description clearly states the tool lists version history (commits) of a presentation, with a specific ordering (newest to oldest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like presentation_get or presentation_list, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it is used to retrieve the commit history of a specific presentation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

presentation_rollbackA

Vuelve una presentación a una versión anterior creando un nuevo commit con ese contenido (rollback no destructivo).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID del deck.
`version`	Yes	SHA de commit al que volver.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the operation is non-destructive and creates a new commit, which is crucial behavioral information that prevents misinterpretation. However, it lacks details on required permissions, side effects on deployments, or handling of invalid version SHAs, which would elevate it further.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and efficiently adds the key behavioral detail (non-destructive new commit). There is no redundant information or unnecessary padding.

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?

For a rollback tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the operation's essence and safety profile. It explains the mechanism (creating a new commit) and the non-destructive nature, which is the core context needed. It could mention prerequisites like a valid commit SHA, but that is not critical given the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema fully describes both required parameters (id and version), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, mentioning only 'contenido' without elaborating on parameter formats or relationships. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: reverting a presentation to a previous version by creating a new commit, which also distinguishes it from destructive rollbacks and from direct updates like presentation_update. The verb 'Vuelve' and the mechanism 'creando un nuevo commit' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for non-destructive rollback but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., presentation_update, presentation_list_versions) or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It offers context (non-destructive) but no exclusionary or alternative references, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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

presentation_updateA

Actualiza una presentación existente (reemplaza HTML y/o metadata) creando una nueva versión. No borra el historial.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID del deck a actualizar.
`html`	No	Nuevo HTML (si se omite, se conserva el actual).
`tags`	No	Nuevas etiquetas (reemplazan las anteriores).
`title`	No	Nuevo título (opcional).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds significant context by explaining that the update creates a new version and 'No borra el historial' (does not delete history), which is crucial non-destructive behavior. While it doesn't mention return values or auth, it covers the most important behavioral aspect for an update tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the main action ('Actualiza'), then explains the key behavior (creates a new version) and a critical guarantee (does not delete history). Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema. The description provides enough behavioral context (versioning, history preservation) and parameter clarity. It could mention what the tool returns, but this is not critical for a mutation tool, and the description is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by explicitly stating that it 'reemplaza HTML y/o metadata' (replaces HTML and/or metadata), clarifying that the 'html' parameter and metadata fields (tags, title) are the ones affected. This gives the agent a better understanding of how the parameters are grouped and applied.

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 description uses the specific verb 'Actualiza' (updates) with the resource 'presentación existente' (existing presentation), and specifies the scope by stating it replaces HTML and/or metadata. It also distinguishes itself from a simple overwrite by noting it creates a new version, which sets it apart from direct update semantics.

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 the tool is for modifying existing presentations by creating a new version, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like presentation_rollback or presentation_deploy. There is no direct exclusion or naming of alternative tools, so the guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

8 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026
- First observedpresentation_create
- First observedpresentation_deploy
- First observedpresentation_get
- First observedpresentation_get_deployment
- First observedpresentation_list
- First observedpresentation_list_versions
- First observedpresentation_rollback
- First observedpresentation_update

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: create, update, get, list_versions, list, rollback, deploy, and get_deployment. The boundaries are clear, e.g., presentation_get for content vs presentation_get_deployment for deployment status.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the presentation_verb pattern consistently, using straightforward verbs like create, update, get, list, rollback, deploy. Even sub-actions like list_versions and get_deployment maintain the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a presentation management service with versioning and deployment. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered with create, read, update, versioning, rollback, and deployment. The only notable gap is the absence of a delete/purge operation for presentations, which agents might need for full lifecycle management.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

SlidelessOAuth
ai.slideless
List, share, upload, and manage Slideless HTML presentations from any MCP host.
Content Management Systems Workplace & Productivity
2
google-mcp
io.github.matiasbattocchia
Streamable HTTP MCP server for Google Calendar and Sheets with OAuth login.
Calendar Management Cloud Platforms Workplace & Productivity
24
neverinfamous-memory-journal-mcp
ai.smithery
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
Version Control Developer Tools Project Management
320
StorydocOAuth
com.storydoc
Generate and manage Storydoc presentations from any MCP-compatible client.
Marketing Workplace & Productivity
2

Related MCP Servers

slideless-mcpofficial
Content Management Systems Workplace & Productivity
slideless-ai
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server that wraps the Slideless HTTP API as tools for listing, sharing, uploading, and managing HTML presentations from any MCP host without installing the CLI.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-08 20:16 UTC)
-
marp-agent-mcp
Workplace & Productivity Design Tools
iwamot
F
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
MCP server for generating slides from natural language, with interactive preview and export to PDF, PPTX, and Markdown.
Updated 5 days ago (2026-09-01 16:14 UTC)
19
-
Google Slides MCP Server
Workplace & Productivity
bohachu
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Provides MCP server for Google Slides API, enabling creation, reading, modification, and management of Google Slides presentations using service account authentication.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-28 16:50 UTC)
13
4
GPL 3.0
mcp-presentation
Developer Tools CI/CD & DevOps File Systems
hewimetall
F
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
MCP server for building presentations (PDF/web) with a task-based async pipeline, enabling session management, project creation, presentation IR saving, git commits, building, and deployment.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-14 13:09 UTC)
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Bidcomsrl/bitacora-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

bitacora-mcp

Qué hace

Prerequisitos

Setup inicial

Configuración

Modo stdio (local, sin login de Google)

Modo HTTP (con login de Google Workspace)

Store: git (default) o MongoDB

Credenciales de Google (setup una sola vez)

1. OAuth client "Desktop app" — para deployar en Apps Script

2. OAuth client "Web application" — para login de usuarios (modo HTTP)

Levantar MongoDB local (para modo MongoDB)

Pruebas locales

Smoke test (sin credenciales de Google)

Probar con MCP Inspector

Probar con Claude Desktop

Conectar a Claude Desktop (modo stdio, sin login)

Tools (18)

Versionado (13)

Publicación (5)

Decks grandes

Arquitectura

Notas de stack

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

slideless-mcpofficial

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API