GenFlick

create film still

native.create_film_still

DestructiveIdempotent

Create exactly one new still image in this Film. For a single still from a supplied brief, call this first using the context's authoringRevision: no project, settings or action-contract read is needed. Saves the requested quality and one single-frame shot together, then admits its image through the native Film workflow. Preserves existing scenes and takes; never generates video, audio or element references. The saved image take, not admission, proves completion. For edits to an existing shot use apply_film_studio_actions instead.

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.create_film_still"
  }
}

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.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real context beyond them: it preserves existing scenes and takes, never produces video, audio or element references, and states that the saved image take rather than admission proves completion. It does not cover permissions or how the admission step can fail, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then procedure, side effects and the alternative, in a dense but well-ordered block. It is jargon-heavy ("action-contract", "admits its image", "admission") and slightly longer than needed, but no sentence is pure filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with six parameters, nested arguments, no annotations explaining the workflow and many siblings, this definition covers outcome, side effects, completion proof and the sibling alternative, and an output schema exists so return values need no description. Remaining gap is the ambiguous revision parameter naming versus the schema.

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 some of the load: it ties quality to a single-frame shot and explains the revision/catalog expectations at a high level. However, it names "authoringRevision" while the schema requires expected_revision, and request_key, work_id and project_id get no explanation, so the added meaning is partial and slightly ambiguous.

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

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Create exactly one new still image in this Film") and scopes it to a single still, which separates it from generate_scene_media, draft_storyboard and apply_film_studio_actions without opening another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use ("For a single still from a supplied brief, call this first using the context's authoringRevision: no project, settings or action-contract read is needed") and an explicit alternative for the other case ("For edits to an existing shot use apply_film_studio_actions instead"). The agent is routed correctly in both directions.

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?