GenFlick

Read an exact analytics request and up to 50 saved report rows

native.genads_analytics_request

DestructiveIdempotent

Read an exact analytics request and up to 50 saved report rows. Continue with nextOffset. Report coverage describes captured source data, not whether this page displays every row or whether Google has finalized results.

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.genads_analytics_request"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description frames the operation purely as a read, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; an agent relying on the prose would assume no side effects, so the framing conflicts with the supplied safety profile. The one real contribution beyond annotations is the caveat that 'report coverage describes captured source data, not whether this page displays every row or whether Google has finalized results', which usefully warns about incomplete/lagging results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope before the pagination and coverage caveats; there is no filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly convoluted ('not whether this page displays every row or whether Google has finalized results'), but it carries real semantic weight.

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 values needn't be explained, and the coverage/finalization caveat covers the main result-interpretation risk. Still, for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects and cryptic session parameters (read_skills, expected_catalog_version, request_key) at 50% schema coverage, the description leaves significant invocation prerequisites undocumented.

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 needs to compensate and does not: work_id, arguments.operation_id, limit/offset bounds, request_key, and the opaque read_skills and expected_catalog_version requirements are entirely unexplained. The only parameter-adjacent hint is 'Continue with nextOffset', and even that names a field ('nextOffset') that does not appear in the input schema, whose pagination arguments are 'limit' and 'offset'.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Read an exact analytics request and up to 50 saved report rows'), including a scope bound of 50 rows that distinguishes it from a broad listing tool. It stops short of naming the nearest siblings (native.genads_analytics_requests, native.genads_reports, native.genads_read_report), so an agent must infer the boundary check.

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?

'Continue with nextOffset' gives concrete pagination-follow-up guidance for subsequent calls, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over native.genads_analytics_requests or native.genads_read_report, nor any precondition for the first call, so usage is only implied.

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?