GenFlick

inspect generation job

native.inspect_generation_job

DestructiveIdempotent

Read a scoped generation's status, provider receipt evidence, bounded database cause codes, attempt/recovery budgets, apply checkpoints and supported next actions. Never retries a paid generation.

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_generation_job"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations (bounded cause codes, attempt/recovery budgets, apply checkpoints, and the explicit guarantee that it will not re-trigger a paid generation). However, it frames the tool as a pure 'Read', while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; an agent cannot tell from the description whether inspecting has side effects or under what conditions it would be destructive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the returned evidence, followed by a short safety guarantee. Dense jargon like 'bounded database cause codes' is a minor readability cost but every clause carries information.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the sentence enumerates what is inspected well. But for a tool with six parameters (five required, nested objects) and a safety profile that conflicts with its 'Read' framing, the definition leaves the agent without parameter guidance or side-effect clarity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description contributes nothing about the six parameters: it never mentions job_id, work_id, request_key idempotency, read_skills proof requirements, or expected_catalog_version. With schema description coverage at only 50%, the undocumented parameters (work_id, request_key, arguments) get no compensating explanation anywhere.

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 verb and resource ('Read a scoped generation's status') and enumerates the concrete evidence returned: provider receipts, bounded cause codes, attempt/recovery budgets, apply checkpoints, next actions. That makes it clearly distinguishable from list_generation_jobs or recover_generation_job in substance, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 only implied: 'Never retries a paid generation' hints that retrying is out of scope and belongs to a recovery tool such as native.recover_generation_job, but that alternative is never named and no explicit when-to-use condition is stated. An agent can infer the intent but must guess the routing rule.

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?