GenFlick

Answer a task's exact open question using the creator's stated intent or authority you already have, or skip it (the task keeps its assumption, or decides for itself)

native.answer_work_question

DestructiveIdempotent

Answer a task's exact open question using the creator's stated intent or authority you already have, or skip it (the task keeps its assumption, or decides for itself). The task keeps working while a question is open, so there is no rush. If the answer is not in the brief or the creator's words, raise the question to the creator with raise_work_question instead; never invent permission.

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.answer_work_question"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Useful context beyond annotations: the task keeps working while a question is open and skipping preserves the assumption or lets the task decide. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description explains neither what state is destroyed/committed by answering nor any irreversibility, relying instead on a reassuring tone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the escalation rule. The nested parenthetical about skip outcomes is slightly dense but each sentence carries information.

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?

Six parameters with nested objects and an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves the whole argument object (body vs. skip vs. option_ids vs. source_ids) and the request_key/idempotency contract unaddressed. Adequate on intent, thin on how to actually invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and several sub-parameters (skip, option_ids, source_ids, question_id, work_id, request_key, read_skills) carry no schema description. The description adds no meaning about any of them — notably no guidance on when to set skip, when option_ids vs. free-text body applies, or what source_ids should cite.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Answer a task's exact open question') and makes the outcome explicit, including the skip alternative that leaves the task's assumption intact. It also names the sibling it is not (raise_work_question), so an agent can separate it from the escalation path, though it does not distinguish itself from settle_questions or request_user_input.

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?

Explicit routing guidance is given: answer only from the brief or the creator's stated intent/authority, otherwise escalate via raise_work_question, and 'never invent permission'. The skip path is mentioned but not clearly conditioned (when to skip vs. answer is left implicit).

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?