Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

apply canvas actions

native.apply_canvas_actions
DestructiveIdempotent

Apply native Canvas actions against the observed authoringRevision. Use exact tile_id/stack_id/document_id. Durable receipts prevent duplicate outputs; follow-up jobs remain owned by this turn. Read the operating skill's action contract. Read new output IDs before referencing them in another call.

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.apply_canvas_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes
argumentsYes
read_skillsYesExact 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_keyYes
publication_proposal_idNoFor native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
expected_catalog_versionYesFor 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: durable receipts prevent duplicate outputs, follow-up jobs remain owned by this turn, and actions run against the observed authoringRevision. These details reinforce idempotency semantics and clarify async ownership, though authorization and destructive consequences are left to the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the core operation, and every sentence carries a concrete instruction or constraint. There is no redundant wording.

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?

For a complex nested action tool with six parameters, the description delegates heavily to the operating skill's action contract, which is appropriate. It nevertheless omits how to obtain work_id/request_key and does not describe the scope of supported Canvas actions beyond the schema enum.

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 description adds meaning for expected_revision, action payload IDs such as tile_id/stack_id/document_id, and reading new output IDs. With 50% schema description coverage, it still leaves important top-level parameters like work_id and request_key unexplained.

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: applying native Canvas actions against an observed authoringRevision. This is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as apply_document_edits or apply_film_studio_actions.

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?

It gives procedural guidance to read the operating skill's action contract and to read new output IDs before referencing them. However, it does not say when to choose this tool versus sibling alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites for obtaining work_id or request_key.

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

All GenFlick toolsInspect
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