Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create project

native.create_identity_project
DestructiveIdempotent

Create and link a Film, Series, Canvas, Storyboard, Social, Brand, or Genfluencer project. This creates an empty project; delegate_work performs the requested production work.

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_identity_project"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, open-world and destructive semantics, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the result is an empty project requiring delegate_work for actual production. It does not mention that the call requires native skill proofs or a valid catalog version, which materially affects whether it succeeds.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the kind list, then the crucial clarification about empty projects. No filler and nothing buried.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, lowering the burden, and the empty-project/delegate split is well communicated. For a six-parameter, nested-schema creation tool gated on session bootstrap artifacts, though, the missing parameter context leaves the definition thin.

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 needed to compensate and does not. The kind list merely restates the enum, and the opaque required parameters (work_id, request_key, read_skills, expected_catalog_version, operation_id) get no explanation of meaning or sourcing.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Create and link a ... project") and enumerates the supported kinds, so the scope is concrete. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as native.create_project, native.create_film_project, create_series_project, or create_genads_project, which overlap in intent.

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 explicitly routes production work to delegate_work, which is a genuinely useful exclusion. It gives no guidance on when this generic identity-project creator should be chosen over the per-kind creators or native.create_identity_studio, and no prerequisites are stated.

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