GenFlick

edit element file references

native.edit_element_file_references

DestructiveIdempotent

Add owned Library media to this file's generation references or remove observed reference IDs. This changes generation inputs, not takes or Main. Other saved references and creator-edited Final ranges are retained as construction updates automatically.

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.edit_element_file_references"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description still adds useful scope semantics beyond the annotations: it says it changes generation inputs only, not takes or Main, and that other saved references and creator-edited Final ranges are preserved automatically. It leaves out preconditions such as expected_revision, request_key, and read_skills, so I would rate it a 4 rather than 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?

The description is three tight sentences, and the core effect (add or remove references) is front-loaded. The scope and side-effect statements follow in a logical order, and there is no filler. The phrase 'as construction updates automatically' is slightly opaque but still earns its place.

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?

This is a 6-parameter mutation with 5 required parameters and nested objects, but the description covers only the semantic effect and preservation behavior. It omits concurrency and idempotency mechanics (expected_revision, request_key) and the read_skills proof requirement, which matter a lot on a destructive write. The output schema covers return values, but the preconditions are incomplete.

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%, and the description sheds no light on the four undocumented parameters (element_id, file_id, add_references shape, expected_revision). It loosely maps its add and remove phrasing onto add_references and remove_reference_ids, but adds no format or constraint detail. This is the expected baseline when the schema does partial duty.

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 names a specific verb pair (add/remove) and a specific target: this file's generation references. It is clear about the resource even though the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('observed reference IDs', 'construction updates'). It does not explicitly name a sibling like attach_reference to distinguish itself, so I would rate it a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description implies when the tool applies by describing what it adds or removes, and it adds a clarification of what is being edited (generation references). However, it never says when to use this instead of attach_reference, save_element_file, or other edits, and it gives no prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer the choice of tool.

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?