GenFlick

Read the original form mutation result and whether its Page, authored settings or archived status were verified afterward

native.genads_lead_form_result

DestructiveIdempotent

Read the original form mutation result and whether its Page, authored settings or archived status were verified afterward. A captured create alone is not verified settings, private lead access or campaign readiness.

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_lead_form_result"
  }
}

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

Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Read the original form mutation result,' which implies a read-style retrieval, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description provides no explanation of destructive behavior, permissions, prerequisites, or what side effects may occur, creating a direct contradiction rather than adding behavioral context.

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 description is two sentences and front-loads the core retrieval purpose before adding the verification warning. It is compact, though the warning sentence is somewhat cryptic and the first sentence largely restates the title.

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 tool with six parameters, nested arguments, and a destructive annotation profile, the description is too thin. It does not explain key invocation fields, prerequisites, or destructive behavior, though the existence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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?

The description adds no meaning for any of the six parameters. It does not explain work_id, arguments, account_id, plan_id, operation_id, request_key, publication_proposal_id, or expected_catalog_version, and with only 50% schema description coverage the schema does not fully compensate.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource purpose: reading the original form mutation result and checking whether Page, authored settings, or archived status were verified afterward. It does not explicitly say it is the lead-form result tool or distinguish it from nearby siblings such as native.genads_lead_form_review or native.genads_recover_lead_form_change.

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?

The wording implies this is used after a form mutation to verify what was actually confirmed, and the second sentence warns that a captured create alone is insufficient. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and names no sibling tool for comparison.

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?