Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Save a GenAds concept

native.genads_save_concept
DestructiveIdempotent

Save a GenAds concept. Use the exact saved revision; zero creates a new resource. Reuse operation_id after an uncertain response.

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_save_concept"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes
argumentsYes
read_skillsYesExact 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_keyYes
publication_proposal_idNoFor native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
expected_catalog_versionYesFor 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the retry note largely restates idempotency; however, 'zero creates a new resource' adds genuinely new create-vs-update semantics not present in the annotations. The description does not explain what a destructive save overwrites (existing fields, status, evidence links) or what happens on revision mismatch, which is the main behavioral risk for this 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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded and free of filler, which is appropriate for a tool with this much structured metadata. 'Use the exact saved revision' is slightly elliptical (revision of what, validated how), costing a bit of clarity in the name of brevity.

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 and read_skills plus expected_catalog_version carry their own schema descriptions, so the description needn't cover everything. Still, for a destructive, open-world, idempotent write with nested body requirements and a catalog-version precondition, the description leaves the mutation surface and failure modes unexplained.

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 usefully explains expected_revision (exact saved revision, 0 creates) and the operation_id retry contract, which the schema does not. But work_id, request_key, arguments.id, and the nested body fields (title, angle, hook, hypothesis, format) remain undocumented anywhere, so compensation is only partial.

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 says 'Save a GenAds concept', which is a clear verb+resource but essentially restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It gives no signal about how a 'concept' differs from the sibling resources (brief, variant, media, pack, source, experiment), so differentiation among the many save_genads_* siblings is left entirely to the name.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the other save_genads_* tools, nor prerequisites such as needing an existing concept or a valid catalog version. The only usage-adjacent advice is 'Reuse operation_id after an uncertain response', which is a retry rule rather than a when-to-use rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GenFlick toolsInspect
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