GenFlick

Read the tasks you handed out (and the creator's other running tasks): state, revision, the saved report once it settles, an open question, spend, and whether each correction or message was read

native.read_work

DestructiveIdempotent

Read the tasks you handed out (and the creator's other running tasks): state, revision, the saved report once it settles, an open question, spend, and whether each correction or message was read. Use the revision it returns when you send a correction.

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_work"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description presents this as a plain 'read' with no mention of side effects, why a read is non-read-only/destructive, or what state could be changed. The 'whether each correction or message was read' phrasing hints at receipt/state tracking but never explains whether this call itself advances that state. The safety profile rests entirely on the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the returned fields, then the one actionable follow-on rule about revision. The field list is somewhat redundant with the output schema, and the opening clause restates the title almost verbatim, but nothing is padded.

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 schema is a six-parameter envelope (work_id, arguments, read_skills, request_key, expected_catalog_version, publication_proposal_id) with only 50% description coverage, and the description explains none of the envelope mechanics an agent must supply to invoke it correctly. It also leaves the destructiveHint behavior unexplained, which matters far more for this tool than restating return fields already covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are 0 declared input parameters, so with nothing in the schema to document, the description carries no parameter burden and is not penalized for omitting parameter detail.

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 the tasks you handed out') and even clarifies scope by including 'the creator's other running tasks', so an agent can tell it reads delegation/work state rather than, say, workspace history or a single project. It stops short of naming the nearest siblings (get_work, native.get_work, native.wait_for_work) to disambiguate explicitly.

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?

The only usage guidance is a follow-on rule, 'Use the revision it returns when you send a correction', which implies this is read before/around a correction round. There is no statement of when to call this versus get_work, native.wait_for_work, or native.answer_work_question, and no exclusions or preconditions are 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?