GenFlick

preflight production

native.preflight_production

DestructiveIdempotent

Check a proposed media generation against canonical schemas, references, revisions and existing voice/visual requirements. Does not submit generation or reserve credits.

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.preflight_production"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description usefully discloses the cost boundary — no generation submitted, no credits reserved — which is exactly the concern an agent has before a media call. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description never explains what state this call actually mutates (e.g., a session/request record keyed by request_key), so the destructive profile is left unexplained. Not a contradiction, since it never claims to be read-only, but a real gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action and its validation axes front-loaded and the negative scope as a closing qualifier. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 tool has a nested six-parameter schema with a session-bootstrap requirement and an output schema, and the description covers only the high-level intent plus the no-cost guarantee. It says nothing about how a preflight result should be interpreted or what the session/catalog-version prerequisite means in practice, though the schema descriptions for read_skills and expected_catalog_version partially compensate.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. The two undescribed parameters, work_id and arguments (which carries proposed_tool and proposed_arguments — the very thing being preflighted), get no explanation in either place, so an agent cannot tell what 'arguments' should contain beyond the bare enum.

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?

States a specific verb and object: 'Check a proposed media generation' against four named validation axes (schemas, references, revisions, voice/visual requirements). The closing clause 'Does not submit generation or reserve credits' implicitly separates it from the generate_* siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the relationship rather than being told it.

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: the name 'preflight' plus the negative scope ('does not submit generation') suggests calling it before native.generate_series_media or native.generate_series_images, but the description never says 'call this first' or names the tool to use afterwards. It also gives no guidance on what to do with a failing preflight versus an alternative tool.

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?