GenFlick

Save a lead form create or archive draft with its current revision

native.genads_save_lead_form_plan

DestructiveIdempotent

Save a lead form create or archive draft with its current revision. Bind a complete Page/form check from the last 24 hours. Prefilled questions contain only their type; custom questions have explicit answer keys. Archiving is Page-wide, may affect ads outside this project, and does not erase leads. This cannot approve or submit the change.

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_lead_form_plan"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence: archiving is Page-wide, may affect ads outside this project, and does not erase leads. It also bounds the operation ('cannot approve or submit'), which meaningfully refines what 'destructive' means here.

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 no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded before the side-effect warnings. The phrase 'Bind a complete Page/form check from the last 24 hours' is dense to the point of being obscure, which costs a point.

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?

This is a complex mutation with six parameters, deep nesting, and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers scope, side effects and limits, but says nothing about the work_id / operation_id / request_key lifecycle or how this call relates to the lead form review/approve flow, leaving an agent to infer a substantial part of the invocation workflow.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It does add real meaning for the nested questions union ('prefilled questions contain only their type; custom questions have explicit answer keys') and hints at the revision binding via 'current revision', but leaves work_id, operation_id, request_key and the 24-hour check's parameter linkage unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('save') and resource ('lead form create or archive draft'), and scopes it to the draft-with-current-revision case. That separates it from the read-side siblings (genads_lead_form_plans, genads_lead_form_review, genads_lead_form_result), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Bind a complete Page/form check from the last 24 hours' implies a freshness prerequisite, and 'This cannot approve or submit the change' implies a separate approval step exists. However, neither points to the specific alternative tool (e.g. review/approve or recover_lead_form_change) nor states when-not to use this one.

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?