GenFlick

Request a bounded Shopify product check under current store permission

native.genads_check_store

DestructiveIdempotent

Request a bounded Shopify product check under current store permission. Use productId for an individual product or the provider's explicit product search query. Reuse the operationId after an uncertain response. This saves evidence; it never writes to the store or syncs products to ads.

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_check_store"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: the operation is bounded, it runs under current store permission, it saves evidence, and it explicitly does not mutate the store or sync products to ads. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the text offers no explanation of why a 'check' would carry a destructive profile — the agent is left with an unresolved mismatch between the reassuring prose and the declared safety metadata. Return shape and bounding/rate limits are not described.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then argument selection and retry behavior, then the non-mutation guarantee. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a six-parameter, nested-request, open-world tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, argument selection, and retry safety, which is the core. It omits the role of work_id/request_key, the meaning of 'bounded', and any reconciliation of the destructive annotation, so an agent could still invoke it correctly but without full confidence in the surrounding contract.

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 meaningfully covers two of the nested request fields (productId vs. query) plus the operationId retry semantics, which are the fields most likely to be misused. It says nothing about work_id, request_key, or how read_skills pairs with the required native skill proofs, leaving half the top-level contract to the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Request a bounded Shopify product check') and scopes it to the current store permission, which distinguishes it from broader siblings such as native.genads_store_products. It stops short of saying what the check actually returns or what it validates, so 'check' remains somewhat abstract.

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 gives concrete selection guidance between two arguments ('use productId for an individual product or the provider's explicit product search query') and a retry rule ('reuse the operationId after an uncertain response'), which is genuinely actionable. It never contrasts itself with the closest alternatives (native.genads_store_products, native.genads_catalog_sync_request, native.genads_check_catalog_sync), so an agent still has to infer when this call is the right one.

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?