GenFlick

Read a Film's chats (IDs and titles), the work that is live on it with its held claims and blocker owner, and the selected chat's queue and pause

native.list_film_studio_project_work

DestructiveIdempotent

Read a Film's chats (IDs and titles), the work that is live on it with its held claims and blocker owner, and the selected chat's queue and pause. Read it before handing the Film a task; it starts nothing. chat_id selects another chat; chat_offset pages chat names.

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.list_film_studio_project_work"
  }
}

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

Behavior1/5

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

The description asserts 'it starts nothing', i.e. a pure read with no side effects, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. An agent reconciling these gets opposite signals about whether calling this can change or destroy state, and the description offers nothing to resolve that.

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 payload and followed by the usage rule and parameter notes; nothing is padding. The dense jargon ('held claims', 'blocker owner') is unexplained, which costs a little readability but not length.

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 shape needn't be described, and the main payload is well characterized. However, for a 6-parameter tool with nested arguments and heavy session-boilerplate fields, the description omits how the required catalog/skill/key parameters are obtained and leaves the destructive-vs-read conflict unresolved.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description usefully explains the two most ambiguous arguments: chat_id selects a different chat and chat_offset pages chat names. It says nothing about project_id, work_id, request_key, or how read_skills/expected_catalog_version must be sourced, leaving half the required surface to the schema and its partial descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (read) and enumerates exactly what is returned: chats with IDs and titles, the live work with its held claims and blocker owner, and the selected chat's queue and pause state. This is distinguishable from adjacent readers such as native.read_film_studio_project or native.read_work without opening the schema.

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 states a concrete ordering rule, 'Read it before handing the Film a task', which tells the agent where this fits in the workflow, and clarifies it is non-initiating. It does not name competing read tools or say when to skip this one, so it falls short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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?