Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

read blocking library

native.read_blocking_library
DestructiveIdempotent

Read the complete Basics directory, or the exact data of one observed basic_id. Choose semantically from descriptions. Blocking is user-requested, never automatic.

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.read_blocking_library"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description frames the operation purely as a read ("Read the complete Basics directory"), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct conflict about whether the call mutates state, and the description never reconciles it. The one useful behavioral note, that blocking is user-requested and never automatic, does not offset the mischaracterization of the safety profile.

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 read scope front-loaded and the usage caveat last; nothing is redundant. Brevity costs it clarity rather than helping, since a term like "Basics directory" is never grounded, but the structure itself is clean.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a 6-parameter, nested-object tool embedded in a session/bootstrap protocol (catalog version, skill proofs, request key), and the description explains none of that gating. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the agent still lacks context on what the library contains and why these required credentials are demanded.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description clarifies the semantics of the nested arguments.basic_id (omit to read the whole directory, or supply an observed id and choose semantically). It says nothing about work_id, request_key, read_skills, or expected_catalog_version, so half the surface relies on the schema alone.

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?

"Read the complete Basics directory, or the exact data of one observed basic_id" states a specific verb (read) and two distinct modes of the resource (full directory vs. one entry), which is far more informative than the name alone. It is not differentiated from any sibling, and the terms "Basics directory" and "basic_id" are left undefined, keeping 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Choose semantically from descriptions" gives a selection heuristic for which basic_id to fetch, and "Blocking is user-requested, never automatic" implies a usage precondition. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is stated, so the agent must infer when this is preferred over read_element or read_resource.

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