GenFlick

Read safe summaries of protected conversion batches

native.genads_conversion_batches

DestructiveIdempotent

Read safe summaries of protected conversion batches. Raw events, matching identifiers and test codes are unavailable to tools. The human uploads and confirms first-party consent in GenAds. Test Events and production delivery are distinct; never infer business outcomes from acceptance.

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_conversion_batches"
  }
}

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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames this purely as a read ("Read safe summaries"), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent cannot tell whether invoking it mutates or destroys anything. The useful context about unavailable raw events, matching identifiers, and test codes does not resolve that conflict. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences are short and topical (data availability, consent provenance, Test Events vs. production). The final clause about never inferring business outcomes from acceptance is arguably tangential to invoking the tool but is a defensible caution.

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 need not be described, and the consent/data-availability caveats are valuable. However, for a six-parameter nested tool with five required inputs, the description omits any explanation of work_id, request_key, pagination, or what a "batch" covers, leaving meaningful gaps relative to its complexity.

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% and two of the six-plus inputs (work_id, request_key) have no documented meaning anywhere. The description says nothing about account scoping, the `after` cursor for pagination, or how read_skills proofs relate to the call, so it does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read safe summaries of protected conversion batches"), which is concrete enough to act on. It does not distinguish itself from the many adjacent siblings such as native.genads_conversion_result, native.genads_conversion_review, or native.genads_customer_batches, and "safe summaries" leaves the actual payload shape vague.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no statement of which sibling to call instead for raw results, review, or customer batches. The mention that "the human uploads and confirms first-party consent in GenAds" hints at a prerequisite for data existing but is not framed as a calling condition.

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?