GenFlick

get context status

native.get_context_status

DestructiveIdempotent

Inspect the current private working-context checkpoint, source entries, size decisions and exact retained ranges. Search entries with query or continue with its revision-bound cursor. Does not fetch source bodies.

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.get_context_status"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description frames the tool purely as an inspection ('Inspect', 'Search entries') and never explains what is mutated or why a 'get' tool is destructive and non-read-only. It does add useful scope context ('Does not fetch source bodies', revision-bound cursor), but leaves an agent likely to treat this as a safe read. Not a direct contradiction, but a serious undisclosed behavioral trait.

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 what is inspected, then pagination modes, then the exclusion. No filler, though the middle sentence could be tightened into the first without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. What is missing for a 6-parameter, session-scoped tool is the safety/mutation context implied by destructiveHint=true and whether issuing a cursor call has side effects on the checkpoint revision. Adequate to call correctly, not adequate to call safely.

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%, and the undisclosed nested parameters are exactly the ones the description covers: it gives query its search meaning and cursor its 'revision-bound' continuation semantics, which the schema leaves blank. The other required envelope parameters (work_id, read_skills, expected_catalog_version, request_key) get no mention, but three already carry their own schema 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?

The description gives a specific verb plus resource set: inspect the private working-context checkpoint, its source entries, size decisions, and retained ranges. That is far more precise than the name 'get_context_status' and separates it from the mutating sibling native.update_context_retention. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation stays implicit.

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?

'Search entries with query or continue with its revision-bound cursor' gives mode-level guidance for the two nested arguments, and 'Does not fetch source bodies' sets a boundary. However there is no statement of when to call this versus update_context_retention, read_work, or read_source, nor any prerequisite about needing an existing session/checkpoint.

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?