GenFlick

save a framing target

native.genads_save_target

DestructiveIdempotent

Save the inspected target at its exact source timestamp, with an allowed envelope and explicit validity interval. New targets use id new, revision 1; changes use the same id and next revision.

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_target"
  }
}

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful behavioral semantics — writes at the exact source timestamp and pins an explicit validity interval, plus the revision-increment rule for edits — but says nothing about what a save overwrites, how revision conflicts are handled, or how request_key provides idempotency.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and its key constraints (timestamp, envelope, interval) before the id/revision convention. It is dense but readable, with the revision rule cleanly isolated as the second sentence.

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 a complex nested mutation with an output schema and strong annotations, so return values need no explanation. Still, the description omits the session prerequisites that dominate the required parameters (expected_catalog_version, read_skills, request_key), leaving the agent to rely entirely on two partial schema descriptions for call setup.

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% on a 6-parameter nested schema. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for 'id' ('new' sentinel) and 'revision' (1 for new, next for changes) and names envelope/intervalUs/source timestamp conceptually, which the schema alone only types. However edit_id, sourceId, request_key, and read_skills are left for the schema or undocumented, so it does not compensate for the half of parameters lacking descriptions.

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 the inspected target') and clarifies the two modes of operation: creation with id 'new'/revision 1 versus update with the same id and next revision. It does not name the sibling tools it follows (inspect_target_frame) or differs from (save_source, track_target), so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the inspected target,' which tells the agent this follows an inspection step, and the new-vs-change convention gives practical guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to genads_list_targets / genads_inspect_target_frame, and no mention that the target must originate from a prior inspection call in the same session.

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?