Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Link or unlink an existing GenAds project here

native.link_genads_project
DestructiveIdempotent

Link or unlink an existing GenAds project here. Both projects must be editable in the same account. Unlink preserves the child's work.

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.link_genads_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes
argumentsYes
read_skillsYesExact 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_keyYes
publication_proposal_idNoFor native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
expected_catalog_versionYesFor 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the mutation, destructive, idempotent, and open-world annotations, it discloses an account/editability prerequisite and clarifies that unlinking preserves the child's work. That preservation detail usefully narrows the destructive impact to the relationship, although linking effects and concurrency or retry behavior remain unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The three short sentences are front-loaded with the operation, followed by the prerequisite and the unlink preservation guarantee. Each sentence contributes distinct, useful information without unnecessary wording.

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 core operation, main precondition, and key unlink consequence are covered, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values. However, for a complex nested invocation with five required parameters, the vague relationship direction and missing guidance for work_id, request_key, and expected_revision leave notable gaps.

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?

The references to an existing GenAds project and "both projects" add modest meaning to ad_project_id and the current work relationship, while the schema already exposes the link/unlink actions. With 50% schema coverage, important invocation inputs such as work_id, request_key, and expected_revision receive no additional explanation.

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 clearly states the operations and resource: linking or unlinking an existing GenAds project. Its GenAds specificity helps separate it from other project-linking tools, but "here" leaves the other project or relationship direction implicit, and no sibling alternative is explicitly distinguished.

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 supplies useful selection context by requiring an existing GenAds project and stating that both projects must be editable in the same account. It does not explain when linking is preferable to another GenAds workflow or name an alternative for discovering projects or creating a new one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GenFlick toolsInspect
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