GenFlick

recipe read

native.recipe_read

DestructiveIdempotent

Read one recipe: its current graph, layout, revision and where it is used. Pass revision to read an earlier one. Recipes belong to the account, not to this project.

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.recipe_read"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, while the description frames the operation purely as "Read one recipe". Nothing in the text explains any destructive or state-changing effect that would justify those hints. Since the description contradicts rather than supplements the annotations, the bar for this dimension is not merely unmet, it is inverted.

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 the operation and its payload, then the revision hint, then the scoping caveat. No filler and nothing buried; the only weakness is that the terseness leaves required wrapper parameters unexplained.

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-value detail is rightly omitted, and the description lists what the caller gets. However, for a six-parameter tool with nested objects and required bootstrap-style fields (work_id, read_skills, request_key), the description leaves the invocation contract largely to the schema while giving no explanation for the destructive annotations.

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%, with read_skills, expected_catalog_version, and publication_proposal_id documented in the schema itself. The description contributes genuine meaning for `revision` (it selects an earlier version), but says nothing about work_id, arguments, or request_key, which appear nowhere else.

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 one recipe: its current graph, layout, revision and where it is used" gives a specific verb plus resource and enumerates the returned facets, which cleanly separates it from the list-oriented sibling native.recipe_list. It stops short of naming siblings, so the differentiation is implied by scope rather than stated.

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?

"Pass revision to read an earlier one" is a usable hint about when to supply an optional argument, and the account-scoping note helps an agent locate the resource. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance against native.recipe_list, native.recipe_run, or native.recipe_plan_run, so the choice of tool is left to inference.

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?