GenFlick

Read the latest or exact saved Meta study configuration for this advertiser

native.genads_read_studies

DestructiveIdempotent

Read the latest or exact saved Meta study configuration for this advertiser. Reports distinguish classic split tests, creative tests and lift studies. Partial cells or unverified advertiser scope remain incomplete. Entity percentages are not randomized-person or significance evidence. Refresh with genads_ad_action action studies; 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_studies"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does add real behavior detail beyond the annotations: 'this read makes no provider calls', that partial cells or unverified advertiser scope stay incomplete, and that entity percentages are not randomized-person or significance evidence. But it never reconciles the 'read' framing with the supplied annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so an agent gets no explanation of what side effects (consumed request_key, work state, cache) justify a destructive hint on a read tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then caveats, with no filler. The caveat sentences are dense but each carries analytic meaning for a studies read (test taxonomy, incompleteness, percentage interpretation).

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the description covers interpretation limits well. Gaps remain for a six-parameter envelope tool: how 'latest' vs 'exact' is selected, why it is annotated destructive, and any limits on the number of studies returned.

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 must carry more weight than it does. It introduces a 'latest or exact' mode distinction but never maps either mode to a parameter (presumably arguments.operation_id), and says nothing about the work_id/request_key/arguments.account_id envelope that the schema leaves undescribed.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('saved Meta study configuration'), and its scope ('latest or exact ... for this advertiser'). It also routes refresh work to the named sibling genads_ad_action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as genads_read_experiment_evidence or genads_read_measurement, so an agent must still guess where the boundary lies.

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?

'Refresh with genads_ad_action action studies' gives one explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. Beyond that, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the other genads read tools (experiment evidence, measurement, reports), so the usage signal is implied rather than stated.

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?