GenFlick

read skill

native.read_skill

DestructiveIdempotent

Read a skill you do not hold yet, or a section it lists as readable. Skills guide tools; they do not grant permission.

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_skill"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds a useful disambiguation ('Skills guide tools; they do not provide capabilities'), but it never explains why a 'read' is destructive/non-read-only, what state is changed, or that read_skills must be exact proofs from the accepted bootstrap. That is meaningful context for a mutating call left 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a scoping caveat; nothing is wasted. The brevity is arguably over-compressed for a 6-parameter destructive-flagged tool, but that is penalized elsewhere rather than for wordiness.

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 not be explained, and the schema covers catalog version and read_skills proofs. However, for a tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and a destructive annotation on a 'read', the description is thin: it omits the behavioral consequence of the call and the required proof-provenance discipline, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer intent from the schema.

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 description coverage is 50% and the two described fields (read_schema's read_skills, publication_proposal) already carry detailed notes. The description implies section_id ("a section it lists as readable") and skill_id, but work_id and the publication_proposal context are untouched. Given half the schema is undocumented, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a skill... or a section it lists as readable'), and the second sentence clarifies what a skill is and is not ('Skills guide tools; they do not grant permission'), which separates it from toolsets/capability-discovery siblings like native.get_toolset or native.discover_capabilities. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 states a usable condition: read when you do not already hold the skill, or when a listed section is marked readable. That implies a when-not (do not call for skills you already hold), but no alternative tool is named for the 'already hold' case and no prerequisite (obtaining skill_id/hash from the bootstrap) is given.

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?