Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read the exact form review, current human approval and account qualification

native.genads_lead_form_review
DestructiveIdempotent

Read the exact form review, current human approval and account qualification. A human must confirm data purpose and the Page-wide effect in GenAds. Chat is not approval. Submit only those exact references with genads_ad_action action lead_form_change.

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_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes
argumentsYes
read_skillsYesExact 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_keyYes
publication_proposal_idNoFor native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
expected_catalog_versionYesFor 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description frames this as a pure read ('Read the exact form review...'), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. A destructive, non-read-only tool described entirely as a read is a direct contradiction, and the description offers no clue about what is mutated, under what authorization, or with what side effects. The clarifying sentence about submitting changes via genads_ad_action in fact reinforces the impression that this call itself is side-effect free.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the read/approval constraint leads. The phrase 'those exact references' has an unclear antecedent, which costs a point in clarity without adding much length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool has six parameters (five required), nested objects, and destructive annotations that the description never addresses. For a destructive-flagged GenAds operation with human-approval gating, the description should state what the call itself changes versus what is merely read, and how the required identifiers are obtained.

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 schema includes a nested 'arguments' object plus work_id and request_key that carry no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameter by name; 'those exact references' hints at a link between the review output and the subsequent lead_form_change call but never says that plan_id, read_skills, or request_key are required to identify the reviewed plan.

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 ('Read') and names three concrete resources: the exact form review, the current human approval, and account qualification. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as genads_lead_form_plans, genads_lead_forms, or genads_lead_form_result, so an agent must infer which of these returns which artifact.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a real usage rule: a human must confirm data purpose and the Page-wide effect, and 'Chat is not approval', which tells the agent what does NOT satisfy the precondition. It also names the follow-up path ('Submit only those exact references with genads_ad_action action lead_form_change'). It stops short of stating when NOT to call this tool or what to do if approval is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GenFlick toolsInspect
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