GenFlick

Review 3D cut for Film

native.prepare_three_d_film_handoff

DestructiveIdempotent

Review a saved 3D cut against an editable Film before creating clips. Name the cut by its exact pin, or by its 3D element (three_d_element_id) and optional cut_file_id; when the element has several cuts and none is named, the result lists them to choose from. Returns the Film's revision, scenes and clips, every shot use on the cut clock with its length in seconds, the shapes the cut plays with any automatic links, and the destination video model's motion-guide limit. Group consecutive shot uses into clips yourself or as the creator instructs: a clip may hold several shots of any length within that limit. Changes nothing.

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.prepare_three_d_film_handoff"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description ends with "Changes nothing," while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct conflict on exactly the dimension an agent uses to decide whether a call is safe, and it will leave the agent unsure whether the review triggers any server-side state change.

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?

Dense but well ordered: identification method first, return payload second, the agent's own responsibility (grouping shot uses into clips) third, and the side-effect claim last. The return-payload sentence is long but carries real selection information, so little trimming is warranted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-style prepare step with an output schema, the description covers naming, disambiguation fallback, the returned fields that matter for the next step, and the motion-guide length constraint that governs clip grouping. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result, aside from the conflicting side-effect claim.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the ambiguous business parameters: it explains the pin as an exact saved cut version, the element/cut_file_id pair as an alternative naming path, and project_id as the destination Film. The session plumbing parameters (work_id, request_key, publication_proposal_id) are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Review a saved 3D cut against an editable Film before creating clips," which distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_film_three_d, read_film_three_d and apply_three_d_film_handoff by placing it in the review-before-apply stage. It does not explicitly name any sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 clear selection guidance: name the cut by exact pin, or by three_d_element_id plus optional cut_file_id, and states the fallback behavior when the element has several cuts and none is named (the result lists them). What is missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over inspect_film_three_d or when to follow it with apply_three_d_film_handoff.

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?