GenFlick

Read saved performance report summaries

native.genads_reports

DestructiveIdempotent

Read saved performance report summaries. Reports retain their dates, currency and completeness.

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_reports"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description never reconciles that with its 'Read' framing — it neither explains what side effects or state changes occur nor what gets destroyed. The only added behavior note, 'Reports retain their dates, currency and completeness,' is a mild data-integrity statement about the saved artifacts and does not cover permissions, session/bootstrap requirements, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and with no padding. The second sentence, though brief, is cryptic enough ('completeness' of what, measured how?) that it earns less than full credit.

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?

This is a high-complexity invocation: five required parameters, a nested 'arguments' object, required native skill proofs, and a catalog-version contract. The description covers none of that orchestration context, and combined with the unexplained destructive annotation, an agent cannot reliably prepare a correct call from it.

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 with only 50% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — not for account_id scoping, the 'after' cursor (presumably pagination), work_id, or request_key. The complex contract parameters (read_skills, expected_catalog_version) are documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented half.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read saved performance report summaries.' An agent knows it retrieves previously saved (not freshly generated) report summaries. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from closely named siblings such as native.genads_read_report, native.genads_read_measurement, native.genads_review_performance, or native.genads_store_order_reporting.

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, no precondition, and no named alternative. In a namespace with dozens of genads read/review tools whose names overlap heavily, the absence of any routing cue ('use read_report for a single report, reports for the saved list') is a real selection hazard.

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?