Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

read film studio final prompt

native.read_film_studio_final_prompt
DestructiveIdempotent

Read complete provider-ready prompt construction and current advanced edit for an exact saved Film resource. No generation or credits. Pending preparation is only a preview. Ordinary authoring still uses board_prompt/video_prompt; use this when the creator asks to inspect or edit the final outgoing text.

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_film_studio_final_prompt"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds genuine behavior beyond the annotations: no generation and no credits consumed, and pending preparation is only a preview. However, the description frames the operation as reading while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and it never explains that side effect or the read_skills proof requirement, leaving an agent unsure whether the call is actually safe.

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?

Four short sentences with the purpose and the cost constraint front-loaded, then the alternative, then the trigger. Minor jargon ('provider-ready prompt construction') costs some clarity but nothing is padded.

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, and the description covers purpose, cost, and the authoring alternative. For a tool with a nested arguments object and a required read_skills proof array, though, it omits the preconditions an agent most needs, and it leaves the destructive annotation unexplained.

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?

Six parameters at 50% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them. It says nothing about kind (image/video/poster/narration/music), edit_variant_id, request_key, or which work_id/arguments combination identifies the resource, so it does not compensate for the undocumented half of the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: reads the complete provider-ready prompt construction and current advanced edit for an exact saved Film resource. The scope is narrower and clearer than a generic 'read', but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling native.read_element_final_prompt, and 'current advanced edit' is left unexplained.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: ordinary authoring 'still uses board_prompt/video_prompt', and this tool is for when the creator asks to inspect or edit the final outgoing text. That is a real when-to-use plus a named alternative, though the alternative is a prompt surface rather than a sibling tool name, and there is no guidance on when to pair it with native.save_film_studio_final_prompt.

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