Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

check continuity

native.check_continuity
DestructiveIdempotent

Find structural canon, reference, voice and episode-slot issues with stable evidence IDs. Reviews inspect at most 12 resources per page; follow nextCursor until the whole Series is covered. Semantic contradictions require reading the relevant passages.

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.check_continuity"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description frames the tool purely as inspection ('Find ... issues', 'Reviews inspect ...'), which would lead an agent to treat it as a safe read. Nothing explains what is written or destroyed, whether review artifacts persist, or why a check operation is flagged destructive. The pagination/cursor disclosure is genuinely useful behavioral context, but the safety-relevant behavior is undisclosed.

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 purpose and then the pagination and reading requirements; no filler. The third sentence ('Semantic contradictions require reading the relevant passages') is slightly cryptic out of context but still earns its place as a behavioral hint.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the paging contract is covered. But for a 6-parameter tool with 5 required parameters, nested arguments, and a native-skill proof requirement, the description leaves major invocation prerequisites to the schema and explains nothing about the destructive flag or how it relates to review_continuity.

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 50%, with cursor and resource_ids carrying empty or absent descriptions, so the description has to compensate. It adds some value by naming nextCursor and the 12-per-page batching, but never explains what resource_ids constrains versus a full-series scan, nor does it mention work_id, request_key, read_skills, or expected_catalog_version, all of which are required.

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 and resource set: find structural canon, reference, voice and episode-slot issues with stable evidence IDs. That is far more concrete than the bare name. The gap is sibling differentiation: native.review_continuity exists in the sibling list and the description never explains how a 'check' differs from a 'review', leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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 does supply operational guidance: 12 resources per page, follow nextCursor until the whole Series is covered, and the note that semantic contradictions require reading the relevant passages. What is missing is when-to-use framing — no statement of prerequisites, no distinction from native.review_continuity, and no guidance on when to scope with resource_ids versus scanning the full series.

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