Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list generation jobs

native.list_generation_jobs
DestructiveIdempotent

List recent generation jobs in this Series, including failed jobs without media. Optionally select an exact job ID, target ID or status. Read the returned names to identify the creator's intended work, then use its ID with inspect_generation_job.

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_generation_jobs"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description portrays a pure listing operation ('Read the returned names'), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which is the opposite safety profile for an enumeration tool. The description does add genuine behavioral context the annotations lack ('including failed jobs without media'), but the conflict leaves the agent unable to reconcile what the tool actually does. Flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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: purpose and scope first, filtering second, follow-on tool third. No filler. The final sentence carries real workflow value rather than restating the name.

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 fields need not be described, and the description correctly points at names plus IDs. However, for a six-parameter tool with nested arguments it omits default/result-count behavior for 'limit', says nothing about whether job_id is exclusive with other filters, and the destructive annotation is left unexplained.

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 description clarifies three of the four arguments (exact job_id, target_id, status) but says nothing about 'limit' (1-30, default unspecified) or the protocol parameters request_key/publication_proposal_id. It adds some meaning beyond the schema for the filters, particularly that job_id must be exact, but leaves key call-shaping parameters unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List recent generation jobs') scoped to 'this Series' and explicitly notes that failed jobs without media are included, which is a meaningful scope detail. It names inspect_generation_job as the follow-on tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling native.list_film_studio_generation_jobs, so the agent must infer the Series-vs-film-studio split from the name alone.

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 gives a clear when-to-use path: enumerate recent jobs, optionally narrow by job ID, target ID or status, then hand the ID to inspect_generation_job. That is actionable routing guidance with no explicit exclusions or 'use X instead when' clause, which keeps it short of a 5.

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