Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Save a GenAds source

native.genads_save_source
DestructiveIdempotent

Save a GenAds source. 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_source"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds real value on top by explaining optimistic-concurrency semantics (expected_revision, zero means create) and the retry contract for operation_id, but it never says what an existing source loses on overwrite or what happens when the revision is stale.

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 identity of the operation and followed by the two non-obvious calling rules. No filler, though the revision/operation_id sentences are dense enough that they read as shorthand rather than explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, so the description needn't explain return values or safety. What remains thin is the mutation contract — what a save replaces, and how revision conflicts surface — which an agent calling a destructive, versioned write would benefit from knowing.

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%: read_skills, publication_proposal_id, and expected_catalog_version already carry schema descriptions, and the description usefully covers the two undocumented operational params (expected_revision, operation_id). The nested arguments.body with its many enums and the work_id/request_key params remain unexplained in the description, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 ("Save a GenAds source") that clearly identifies the write operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from near-neighbours in the sibling list such as native.save_genads_media, native.save_genads_pack, or native.save_genads_variant, so an agent must infer that "source" means the source-record resource rather than media/pack/variant.

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?

The description gives concrete calling guidance — use the exact saved revision, pass zero to create, reuse operation_id on an uncertain response — which is genuinely useful for a mutation tool. It gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternative save tools, so the agent still has to infer which of the many save_* siblings applies.

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