GenFlick

Inspect media

native.inspect_asset

DestructiveIdempotent

Load actual media from an authorized resource. Image shows pixels; frames samples an interval; native video/audio requires a compatible saved review model. A motion preview, metadata or transcript does not establish visual, audio or full-motion quality. Separate analysis consumes this request's allowance.

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.inspect_asset"
  }
}

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 declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations do not carry: a prerequisite ('native video/audio requires a compatible saved review model') and a cost side effect ('Separate analysis consumes this request's allowance'). It does not explain why the call is marked destructive what the destructive aspect is, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; each sentence carries information (capability, mode semantics, negative evidence warning, cost). It is dense to the point of terseness, but nothing is redundant.

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, and the mode capability statement is helpful. For a 6-parameter tool with 5 required fields, nested arguments, and a destructive annotation, however, the description leaves key gaps: what 'allowance' means, what error results if the saved review model is missing, and how it relates to sibling inspection tools.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the schema itself documents report, question, resource_id and expected_revision thoroughly. The description's contribution is limited to mode semantics (image/frames/video/audio), which adds genuine meaning to the undocumented mode enum, but work_id, request_key, start_seconds and duration_seconds are explained nowhere.

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 and resource ('Load actual media from an authorized resource') and then delineates what each mode yields: 'Image shows pixels; frames samples an interval; native video/audio requires a compatible saved review model.' It also distinguishes itself from weaker substitutes (motion preview, metadata, transcript). It stops short of naming any sibling tool such as native.inspect_source or native.read_resource, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

'A motion preview, metadata or transcript does not establish visual, audio or full-motion quality' implies the use case: when you need to verify actual visual/audio quality rather than proxy evidence. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no statement of which sibling to call instead for a cheap metadata check, and no guidance on choosing among the five modes.

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?