GenFlick

add element take from library

native.add_element_take_from_library

DestructiveIdempotent

Attach an authorized Library image, audio or video to this file as a new unselected take. An uploaded voice is used directly without synthesis. Read the new take before choosing it or making it Main.

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": {
      "work_id": "<work_id>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>",
      "expected_catalog_version": "<expected_catalog_version>",
      "read_skills": "<read_skills>",
      "request_key": "<request_key>"
    },
    "name": "native.add_element_take_from_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`work_id`	Yes
`arguments`	Yes
`read_skills`	Yes	Exact required native skills and their dependencies, copied from the accepted session bootstrap's skills array. Include only entries in that array. General mcp.* guides and native.{studio}.instructions are guidance, not native skill proofs.
`request_key`	Yes
`publication_proposal_id`	No	For native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
`expected_catalog_version`	Yes	For a new session, read a studios/{studio}/native/{pack} child toolset and copy invocation.catalog_version from a native tool descriptor. Do not use the top-level library version. For calls in an existing session, use that session proposal's catalog_version.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: the take is created unselected (existing selection is not changed) and an uploaded voice is used directly rather than re-synthesized. It does not explain what the destructiveHint actually endangers, which is the one gap left against a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it attaches, a synthesis exception that would otherwise cause wrong assumptions, and a mandatory follow-up step. The operative action is front-loaded with zero filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety, but the definition is thin for a six-parameter, nested-object tool. It never says how to obtain the media_id/export_id reference, what 'authorized' means operationally, or whether adding a take affects existing takes. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for confident first-call use.

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 only 50%, so the description carries real weight here, and it partially does: 'this file' maps to file_id and 'Library image, audio or video' gestures at the reference object. However, it never explains the media_id vs export_id anyOf branch, nor what element_id, read_skills, request_key or expected_catalog_version require. With half the parameters undocumented in either place, the description does not fully compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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: 'Attach an authorized Library image, audio or video to this file as a new unselected take.' That distinguishes it from the generation sibling (generate_element_take) by implying the asset already exists rather than being synthesized. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Attach an authorized Library...' sets the precondition (asset must already be in the workspace library and authorized), and 'Read the new take before choosing it or making it Main' gives an explicit post-call workflow rule that routes the agent to read_element / select_element_take / set_element_main. There is no stated when-not or named alternative for the generate-vs-attach decision, which keeps it below a 5.

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

All GenFlick tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?