GenFlick

inspect a target frame

native.genads_inspect_target_frame

DestructiveIdempotent

Inspect a measured original frame. Use its evidenceId and sourceTimeUs to select a box or point; apply privacy masks before inspection.

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_inspect_target_frame"
  }
}

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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames the operation as an inspection ("Inspect a measured original frame"), implying a harmless read, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The privacy-mask sentence is the only hint of mutation, and it is framed as something the caller does beforehand rather than as side effects this call persists. Nothing states what is irreversibly masked, what permissions or session state are required, or why a supposedly read-like action is destructive.

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, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity (the referent of "its" and the meaning of "select a box or point" require guesswork), but the size itself is appropriate.

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 complex tool (6 parameters, nested redaction objects, required session/skill/catalog-version machinery) with a destructive side effect, and the description addresses almost none of that. The output schema covers return values, but the destructive masking behavior, the meaning of the required redactions payload, and the session prerequisites are left to the schema and annotations.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it explains only sourceTimeUs and the box/point notion (mapping loosely to redactions[].box). Worse, it tells the agent to use an "evidenceId" that does not exist anywhere in the input schema, while edit_id, revision, sourceId, and the redaction time ranges go unexplained.

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?

"Inspect a measured original frame" plus the note about selecting a box or point conveys a specific verb and resource, so the general intent is graspable. But the object is vague (inspect how, producing what?) and there is no differentiation from close siblings such as native.genads_inspect_take, native.inspect_source, or native.genads_read_measurement. An agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the description alone.

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?

The only guidance is an ordering constraint, "apply privacy masks before inspection," which implies this is a step taken after measurement. There is no statement of when this tool is the right choice versus the many sibling inspect/read tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites (session bootstrap, skills) are given.

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?