GenFlick

Compare exact creative releases from a saved advertiser report

native.genads_review_performance

DestructiveIdempotent

Compare exact creative releases from a saved advertiser report. Optional previous_report_id reviews adjacent equal periods for possible decline. Thresholds are review filters, not statistical significance. Returns source-linked observations, frozen creative dimensions, missing evidence and suggested next hypotheses; never a winner, verified fatigue, experiment allocation or campaign authority.

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_review_performance"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: what is returned (source-linked observations, frozen creative dimensions, missing evidence, next hypotheses) and explicit negative capability boundaries (never a winner, verified fatigue, experiment allocation, campaign authority). But annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description says nothing about side effects, state persisted, or why the tool is non-read-only — a reader would infer a pure read operation from 'returns observations'.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the optional comparison path and the capability disclaimers. The final sentence is dense and comma-heavy but every clause carries a real constraint, so nothing is padding.

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?

The tool is complex (6 top-level params, nested arguments, required read_skills and expected_catalog_version envelope) and, while an output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, the description does not help an agent satisfy the session/bootstrap prerequisites. The comparison semantics and boundaries are well covered; the invocation envelope is not.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does compensate partially: it explains previous_report_id's semantics precisely and characterizes the minimum_* thresholds as review filters rather than statistical tests. It says nothing about the metric enum (ctr/cpc/cpm), campaign_id scoping, or the envelope parameters (work_id, request_key, read_skills), leaving the remaining half dependent on the bare schema.

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: comparing exact creative releases from a saved advertiser report, with the report/account anchor clear. It is distinguishable from report-reading siblings like native.genads_read_report, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It explains the optional previous_report_id path (adjacent equal periods for possible decline) and warns that thresholds are review filters rather than significance tests. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over adjacent review tools such as native.genads_campaign_review or native.genads_read_measurement, and no stated prerequisites beyond the schema.

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?