GenFlick

get run status

native.get_run_status

DestructiveIdempotent

Read durable workflow status for this run, an exact run_id from this chat, or scope=current_chat for prior turns. Returns compact status and work counts without rereading the conversation. A run's status describes that run only; inspect the native generation jobs for media accepted under a separate owner.

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_run_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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the schema — durable vs conversational status, "compact status and work counts without rereading the conversation", and the single-run scope caveat. However, it describes a pure read ("Read durable workflow status") while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description never explains that mutation/destructive aspect, leaving the agent with an unexplained conflict.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource and addressing options, with zero filler. Each sentence carries a distinct idea (what to read, what comes back, scope limits), though the final clause is dense enough to require careful parsing.

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 only light description, and the description does characterize them as compact status plus work counts. Gaps remain for a 6-parameter tool with 5 required params: pagination (limit/before_run_id) is unexplained, request_key semantics are absent, and the destructive/readOnly annotation profile is never reconciled.

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 description meaningfully explains two nested parameters: run_id ("an exact run_id from this chat") and scope=current_chat for prior turns. It says nothing about limit, before_run_id pagination, request_key, or read_skills (the latter two carry their own schema text), so pagination behavior for this status list is undocumented in both places.

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 ("Read durable workflow status") plus the three addressing modes (this run, exact run_id from this chat, scope=current_chat). It also draws a boundary against native generation jobs for separately-owned media, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like native.read_work or native.inspect_generation_job, though those siblings are never named directly.

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?

Gives concrete selection conditions for the three addressing modes and one explicit hand-off ("inspect the native generation jobs for media accepted under a separate owner"). It stops short of naming alternatives such as native.read_work, native.wait_for_work or native.get_context_status, so the agent must infer which status-family tool to pick for those cases.

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?