GenFlick

Read the exact current campaign review snapshot and previously saved human approvals

native.genads_campaign_review

DestructiveIdempotent

Read the exact current campaign review snapshot and previously saved human approvals. The agent cannot approve spend or creative rights.

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_campaign_review"
  }
}

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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames the tool purely as a read ('Read the exact current campaign review snapshot'), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. Nothing explains what is mutated, what approval state is consumed, or what the openWorld side effects are, so an agent could treat a destructive, state-advancing call as a harmless lookup.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The compression is efficient, though part of the brevity comes from omitting necessary detail rather than from tight writing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a high-complexity invocation tool with nested arguments, required catalog version, request-key and skill-proof envelope, and openWorld/destructive behavior, yet the description covers none of the protocol or the review-to-approval relationship. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from explaining the invocation envelope or the destructive semantics.

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?

Six parameters at 50% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Critically, the nested arguments.action enum (stage/activate/budget) and the envelope fields work_id, request_key, and read_skills are left entirely to the schema, with no explanation of how the review snapshot relates to the requested action.

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: read the current campaign review snapshot plus previously saved human approvals. That is concrete enough for an agent to know it is fetching review state rather than plans or campaigns. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (e.g. native.genads_campaign_plans or native.genads_campaigns), so the boundary must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no ordering guidance for the review flow. The only constraint offered is a scope disclaimer ('The agent cannot approve spend or creative rights'), which limits authority but does not route the agent between tools.

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?