GenFlick

Read the saved layout edit and its revision

native.genads_read_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Read the saved layout edit and its revision.

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_read_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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames this as a read ('Read the saved layout edit and its revision'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. An agent trusting the prose would treat it as a safe retrieval, so the description actively misleads about the tool's mutation risk profile. Nothing about required session state, catalog versioning, or what a 'revision' entails is disclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. But that brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the one sentence merely paraphrases the title, so no sentence genuinely earns its place.

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?

With five required parameters, nested objects, an output schema, and a heavily annotated destructive profile, this tool needs far more than one sentence. The output schema does excuse it from explaining return values, but it says nothing about session bootstrapping, the meaning of a 'revision', or safety expectations.

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?

Six parameters (five required) at 50% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The nested edit_id inside arguments is undocumented in both the schema and the prose, and there is no hint that expected_catalog_version and read_skills gate the call. Nothing is added beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Read) and resource (saved layout edit) plus a secondary object (its revision), so the basic retrieval purpose is legible. However, 'layout edit' is never defined, and in a sibling set packed with native.genads_edit, native.genads_create_edit, and native.apply_document_edits there is nothing to tell an agent which of these touches the same object. It also never distinguishes itself from the sibling it most resembles.

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 guidance at all: no prerequisite session bootstrap, no mention of when to call this versus native.genads_create_edit or native.genads_edit, and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything about invocation context from the schema's expected_catalog_version and read_skills fields rather than from the prose.

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?