GenFlick

List native Shopify-to-Meta catalog sync requests and original provider identities for one selected store and advertiser

native.genads_catalog_syncs

DestructiveIdempotent

List native Shopify-to-Meta catalog sync requests and original provider identities for one selected store and advertiser. The original enable result is not a current status check.

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_catalog_syncs"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description frames this as a read ('List'), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description never reconciles that tension or explains side effects, permission needs, or the meaning of the work_id/request_key envelope. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral caveat: the returned enable result is a historical snapshot, not live status. Given annotations that suggest mutation on a listing tool, that partial disclosure is not enough.

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 resource and scope, with zero filler. The caveat sentence is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic but still earns its place by preventing a misread of the returned data.

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 tool: 6 parameters, 5 required, a nested arguments object, session/skill-proof envelope fields, and open-world read access. The description says nothing about the calling contract (work_id, request_key, expected_catalog_version, read_skills), pagination via 'after', or any sibling alternative. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the invocation contract remains 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%: read_skills and expected_catalog_version are documented in the schema, while work_id, request_key, arguments.store_id, and arguments.account_id are not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — no mention of store/account selection, the 'after' pagination cursor, or how the skill proofs and catalog version are obtained — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List native Shopify-to-Meta catalog sync requests and original provider identities') and pins the scope to one store and advertiser, which is far more informative than the bare name genads_catalog_syncs. It does not, however, distinguish this listing from adjacent siblings such as native.genads_catalog_sync_request, native.genads_check_catalog_sync, or native.genads_catalog_sync_review, all of which an agent must choose between.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many other catalog-sync-family tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The second sentence ('The original enable result is not a current status check') is a data caveat, not a usage rule, though it hints the caller may instead want a status-checking sibling without naming it.

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?