GenFlick

track a subject

native.genads_track_target

DestructiveIdempotent

Measure an inspected head, window, object or exact point across at most sixty seconds. SAM is paid, exact-point flow is free. Save the returned track in a view only after inspecting its coverage.

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_track_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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, so the description need not restate the safety profile. It adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations: the sixty-second measurement cap, the cost distinction between SAM and exact-point flows, and the requirement to inspect coverage before saving the track.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'in a view' is slightly ambiguous, but overall the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

For a complex tool with six top-level parameters, nested argument objects, and session-related fields, the description covers purpose, duration, cost, and a key workflow constraint. It leaves significant operational context unaddressed, including destructive behavior, request-key/idempotency expectations, and session bootstrap prerequisites.

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 must add meaning, and it does clarify the engine trade-off and the target types being measured. However, it does not explain most required inputs such as work_id, request_key, targetRevision, redactions, edit_id, or sourceId, so it only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 action and resource: measuring an inspected head, window, object, or exact point for up to sixty seconds. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as native.genads_read_track or native.genads_inspect_target_frame.

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 'inspected' and by the instruction to save only after inspecting coverage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The SAM-paid versus exact-point-free note gives useful selection guidance between the two engine values, yet it stops short of full routing guidance.

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?