GenFlick

Put a task's open question in front of the creator in this conversation, labelled with the task

native.raise_work_question

DestructiveIdempotent

Put a task's open question in front of the creator in this conversation, labelled with the task. Use it when the answer is the creator's to give. The task keeps working on its assumption meanwhile; their answer reaches it directly.

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.raise_work_question"
  }
}

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

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds genuine behavior beyond the annotations: the raise is non-blocking ("the task keeps working on its assumption meanwhile") and the answer is routed back to the task directly. However, it does not explain what the destructiveHint=true annotation means in practice for work state, nor what happens if the question is never answered, leaving the most consequential trait undisclosed.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and then the behavioral consequence. No filler, though the opening sentence largely restates the title and the 'labelled with the task' clause could be folded in.

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 values need no explanation, but for a six-parameter session-scoped mutation this description leaves out too much: nothing about the catalog version / skills proof requirements, nothing about which work state changes, and nothing about the meaning of the destructive annotation.

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?

The description offers no parameter guidance at all, and schema description coverage is only 50%. request_key, work_id, and arguments.question_id are undocumented in both places, and the interaction between request_key idempotency and the idempotentHint annotation is never clarified, so the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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 action on a specific resource: surfacing a task's open question to the creator, tagged with the task. That is far more precise than the boilerplate title echo, but it never names the closely related siblings (native.answer_work_question, native.settle_questions, native.request_user_input), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"Use it when the answer is the creator's to give" gives a concrete selection condition that implicitly rules out questions the task can resolve on its own. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions explicitly, which keeps it below 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 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?