GenFlick

build visual program

native.build_visual_program

DestructiveIdempotent

Compile an exact saved visual source checkpoint and pin its immutable revision. This bounded pure build does not inspect pixels or certify live performance.

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.build_visual_program"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety burden is partly carried. The description adds useful scope-limiting context ('bounded pure build', 'does not inspect pixels or certify live performance') and the 'pin its immutable revision' phrasing explains the durable side effect. However, the word 'pure' is in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, and nothing explains retry/idempotency behavior or what the pinning destroys or supersedes.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the scope exclusions. No filler, and every clause carries information about what the tool does or does not do.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, open-world, idempotent build tool with six parameters, a nested required object, and 50% schema description coverage, the definition leaves major gaps: no guidance on prerequisites (skills proof, catalog version, request key uniqueness) and no indication of what the build produces or when to rebuild. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but that alone does not offset the missing invocation context.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, and it does not: work_id, request_key, and the nested arguments object (project_id, program_id, source_revision) receive no explanation anywhere. 'Exact saved source checkpoint' faintly gestures at source_revision but adds no real semantics about what a revision is or how to obtain it.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Compile an exact saved visual source checkpoint') and states the resulting effect ('pin its immutable revision'), which distinguishes it from native.inspect_visual_program, native.write_visual_program_draft, and native.apply_visual_program. It is clear to an agent that this is a build/snapshot operation rather than a drafting or application step. Domain jargon ('visual source checkpoint', 'visual program') is left undefined, which slightly tempers clarity.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'exact saved visual source checkpoint' signals a pre-existing saved source must be built, and 'does not inspect pixels or certify live performance' implicitly routes inspection/verification work to sibling tools. No alternative is named and no prerequisite or when-not condition is spelled out explicitly.

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?