GenFlick

Read the latest saved advertiser measurement check, or an exact operation_id

native.genads_read_measurement

DestructiveIdempotent

Read the latest saved advertiser measurement check, or an exact operation_id. Pixel availability, last activity, diagnostics and event match quality are separate evidence. Missing values are unavailable. A pixel or a good score never verifies sales, consent, deduplication or launch readiness. Refresh through genads_ad_action with action measurement; this read makes no provider calls.

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_measurement"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: no provider calls, so results can be stale, plus the interpretive rules that pixel availability, activity, diagnostics and event match quality are separate evidence and that missing values mean unavailable. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description never reconciles that with its framing as a pure read that makes no provider calls, leaving the agent unsure whether the envelope writes or mutates anything.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then four short sentences that each carry distinct information (evidence separation, missing-value semantics, verification caveat, refresh path). Dense but no filler; the caveat sentence is slightly repetitive in phrasing but still earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the interpretive risks an agent would otherwise get wrong (not treating a pixel or good score as verification of sales, consent, deduplication or launch readiness) plus how to get fresher data. What is missing is any account of the envelope parameters and what the call writes, if anything.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description supplies the key missing semantics for operation_id (omit for latest, supply for an exact operation) that the schema does not document. The remaining undocumented parameters, work_id and request_key, get no explanation in either place, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 and resource ("Read the latest saved advertiser measurement check, or an exact operation_id") and names the two retrieval modes, latest-by-default vs exact operation_id. It also distinguishes itself from the refresh path (genads_ad_action with action measurement), so an agent can tell this is the cached-read variant.

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 explicit routing: use genads_ad_action with action measurement to refresh, use this tool to read what is already saved. It does not address when to prefer this over adjacent read siblings such as genads_ad_operation or genads_read_report, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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?