GenFlick

Read a page of immutable exports, saved output status and human creative reviews

native.genads_releases

DestructiveIdempotent

Read a page of immutable exports, saved output status and human creative reviews. Follow nextCursor. A ready file and an approval are separate facts.

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_releases"
  }
}

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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames the tool as a plain read ('Read a page of immutable exports'), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. An agent reading the description would assume a safe read and could invoke it without the caution the annotations demand. That is a direct contradiction of the safety profile rather than added 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource description followed by operational notes. Nothing is padded, though the terseness borders on cryptic ('releases' is never grounded) rather than genuinely concise.

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 shape need not be explained, but this is a six-parameter tool with a heavy invocation envelope (work_id, request_key, read_skills, expected_catalog_version) and only half the parameters documented. For a tool with this much ceremony, the description should at least note the session/skill-proof requirements and clarify the approval-vs-readiness distinction it hints at.

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 50% and none of the six parameters are explained in the description. Worse, 'Follow nextCursor' names a cursor that does not exist as a parameter (the parameter is arguments.after), which can mislead an agent about how to paginate. Nothing is said about work_id, request_key, read_skills, or expected_catalog_version.

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 three things it returns (immutable exports, saved output status, human creative reviews), which is more than a restatement of the name, but 'releases' is never defined and the phrasing is a noun pile rather than a clear verb+resource. It does not distinguish this from near-siblings such as native.genads_pack_export, native.genads_inspect_production_output, or native.genads_pack_export's stop/quote variants, so an agent has to guess which one lists release records.

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 statement of when to call this versus the many other genads read tools; the only operational guidance is 'Follow nextCursor' and the warning that 'a ready file and an approval are separate facts'. That warning is a useful semantic caveat but not a when/when-not rule, and no prerequisites (session, catalog version, skills) are mentioned.

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?