GenFlick

read element

native.read_element

DestructiveIdempotent

Read identity, variants, files and selected/Main takes. Edit with native revisions; inspect each media take with its exact resourceId and resourceRevision.

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_element"
  }
}

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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames this as a pure read ("Read identity, variants, files..."), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. An agent trusting the prose would treat the call as side-effect free, and the description never explains what the non-read-only or destructive component is, nor the session/catalog-version side effects implied by the required parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler and the primary purpose front-loaded, which is good. But the second sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity ("Edit with native revisions" reads as an instruction rather than a pointer to sibling tools), so terseness costs clarity here.

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?

The tool has six parameters including session-bound requirements (read_skills proofs, expected_catalog_version, request_key idempotency), an output schema, and destructive annotations; the description addresses none of the invocation prerequisites. With an output schema present it need not describe return values, but the omission of session/bootstrap requirements leaves an agent likely to call it incorrectly.

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 coverage is only 50% across six parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them: work_id, element_id, read_skills, request_key and expected_catalog_version are never mentioned. The only identifiers it references (resourceId, resourceRevision) are return-side concepts, not inputs, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

"Read identity, variants, files and selected/Main takes" names a specific verb and enumerates the concrete resources returned, which separates it from siblings such as native.update_element, native.select_element_take and native.read_element_final_prompt. The jargon ("identity", "selected/Main takes") is domain-specific but recognizable to an agent working in this pack.

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?

"Edit with native revisions; inspect each media take with its exact resourceId and resourceRevision" does route the agent: it implies editing belongs to the update/revision tools and take inspection needs exact resource identifiers. However, it never names the actual alternative tools (native.read_resource, native.inspect_asset, native.read_element_final_prompt) or states prerequisites, so the when-to-use boundary is only implied.

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?