GenFlick

generate element take

native.generate_element_take

DestructiveIdempotent

Generate one take from this file's saved source and accepted Final prompt. Requires the saved file revision. Uses the owning studio's permissions and this turn's limits. Generation does not select the result or change Main. Use recover only for an existing recoverable provider result, without paying for a new take.

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.generate_element_take"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses authorization context (owning studio's permissions), turn-level limits, cost implications (recover avoids "paying for a new take"), and the important side-effect boundary that generation neither selects the result nor changes Main. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true; the remaining gap is how long generation runs and how to await it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its preconditions, then the behavioral caveat, then the alternative mode. Every clause carries information, though the phrasing is dense and the referent "this file" assumes session context.

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?

For a paid, open-world generation call with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, permissions, cost, and non-effects on selection/Main. The main omission is how completion is observed (e.g., an accompanying wait/inspect tool), which an agent must infer from the sibling list.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description usefully explains two otherwise undocumented parameters: the required saved file revision (expected_revision) and the generate vs. recover distinction behind the action enum. However, work_id and request_key remain unexplained in both description and schema, so the compensation is partial rather than complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Generate one take from this file's saved source and accepted Final prompt") and explicitly scopes the outcome ("does not select the result or change Main"), which separates it from siblings like native.select_element_take and native.set_element_main. An agent can identify the operation and its boundary without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the preconditions (saved file revision, saved source, accepted Final prompt) and gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule for the recover mode: only for an existing recoverable provider result, avoiding a new paid take. It does not name sibling tools such as native.wait_for_element_generation or native.add_element_take_from_library, so alternative routing is only partially covered.

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?