GenFlick

Create the native shared clip edit for a saved variant, with explicit Library media, layers and audio

native.genads_create_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Create the native shared clip edit for a saved variant, with explicit Library media, layers and audio.

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_create_edit"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds nothing beyond them: it does not say what gets overwritten in the shared clip, how the edit relates to the saved variant, or how the request_key and expected_revision guards behave.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is nearly identical to the title, so the words do not add information. Nothing is misshapen; it is simply redundant rather than wasteful.

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?

For a destructive, nested-parameter, open-world mutation with a required optimistic-concurrency revision and an idempotency key, one sentence is far too thin. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the preconditions, revision semantics, and variant relationship go unaddressed.

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 the two documented fields (read_skills, expected_catalog_version) live in the schema, not the description. The description's phrase 'with explicit Library media, layers and audio' implies parameters that do not exist in the schema (arguments allows only operation_id, variant_id, expected_revision with additionalProperties: false), and it says nothing about work_id, operation_id, expected_revision, or request_key.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create the native shared clip edit for a saved variant.' However, 'native shared clip edit' is domain jargon and the sentence is essentially a restatement of the title, with no differentiation from closely named siblings such as native.genads_edit, native.genads_read_edit, or native.genads_prepare_creative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With over 250 sibling tools, including several genads edit/read/edit-related operations, the description never tells an agent which of those to pick or what prerequisites (saved variant, accepted session bootstrap) must hold first.

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?