GenFlick

Stop future reads in a saved product check while preserving already captured responses

native.genads_stop_store_check

DestructiveIdempotent

Stop future reads in a saved product check while preserving already captured responses.

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_stop_store_check"
  }
}

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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false? no, destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully bounds the blast radius by stating that already captured responses are preserved, which softens what 'destructive' means here. It does not disclose session gating, whether the stop is cooperative/asynchronous, or what happens if the check already finished.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But the sentence is a duplicate of the title and therefore contributes no information the agent did not already have.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a six-parameter, session-gated, flagged-destructive tool with several near-identical stop/sibling tools, though, one sentence cannot be sufficient — the agent lacks the preconditions, the meaning of the required proof fields, and the differentiation needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With six parameters (five required) and only 50% schema description coverage, the description carries real burden but adds nothing: work_id, request_key, arguments.operation_id, and the read_skills proof array go entirely unexplained. It also omits any hint that publication_proposal_id and expected_catalog_version are conditional, which is the kind of context only a description can give.

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 names a specific verb and resource (stop future reads in a saved product check) and clarifies the side effect on captured data. However, it is essentially a verbatim restatement of the title and does nothing to separate this tool from the many adjacent siblings such as native.genads_stop_store_orders, native.genads_check_store, or native.genads_stop_ad_request.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of what state (a running saved product check) must exist first, no mention of when to prefer this over checking status with genads_check_store, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the precondition from the tool name alone.

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?