Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

read workspace history

native.read_workspace_history
DestructiveIdempotent

Audit recent Series run requests, actors and statuses. For searchable conversation text and assistant replies use search_resources kind=chat, then read_resource. No restore or destructive command.

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_workspace_history"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description frames the tool as an audit/read operation and explicitly states 'No restore or destructive command', while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct conflict an agent cannot resolve from the text, and it is exactly the kind of safety signal that matters most. No other behavioral context (scope of data touched, side effects of the required work_id/request_key envelope) is provided.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then the alternative route, with no filler. The final sentence is telegraphic to the point of being ambiguous ('No restore or destructive command'), which costs it a point.

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 itself documents the three trickiest envelope parameters. However, for a tool with five required parameters and a contradictory safety profile, the description leaves the agent without guidance on obtaining work_id, request_key, or expected_catalog_version, and does not resolve the read-versus-destructive tension.

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, five required, with only 50% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them. The undocumented ones include work_id, request_key, and the nested arguments.limit, which are the ones an agent must supply on every call. The description therefore fails to 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it audits recent Series run requests, actors and statuses, which tells an agent what data comes back, not just that it 'reads history'. It also distinguishes itself from the conversation-text path by naming search_resources kind=chat and read_resource. It stops short of 5 because 'Series run requests' is domain jargon that isn't unpacked.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: for searchable conversation text and assistant replies, use search_resources kind=chat followed by read_resource. That is a concrete alternative with a selecting condition. It does not say when this tool should NOT be used beyond that one case, nor what prerequisites exist before calling it.

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