GenFlick

recipe run status

native.recipe_run_status

DestructiveIdempotent

Read how a recipe run stands: each step's state and saved output, each post's state and the draft or ad it saved, credits spent, and any question the run is waiting on. Read it before telling the creator a post is ready.

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_run_status"
  }
}

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 description frames this as a pure informational read ('Read how a recipe run stands'), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. Those tell an agent the opposite about side-effect risk: it is presented as safe inspection but annotated as potentially destructive, so an agent cannot reconcile whether calling it is hazard-free. The rich content enumeration (credits spent, pending questions) is useful, but the read-vs-destructive conflict is the dominant signal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states what is returned, the second states when to call it. No restatement of the title, no filler, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to detail return shape, yet it usefully summarizes the payload categories. The one real gap is the harness contract (work_id, request_key, expected_catalog_version, read_skills proofs), which the description ignores even though those are the most error-prone inputs for a six-parameter, nested-schema tool.

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 supplies no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions run_id, work_id, request_key, or the skill-proof requirement. Key session-scaffolding inputs like work_id and request_key are undocumented anywhere in prose, so the description does not 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 resource ('a recipe run') and a specific verb ('Read how ... stands'), then enumerates exactly what comes back: per-step state and saved output, per-post state and the draft/ad it saved, credits spent, and any blocking question. That is far more informative than the name alone. It stops short of distinguishing this from nearby siblings such as native.get_run_status or native.recipe_read, so an agent still has to infer which status reader applies to recipes.

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?

One concrete usage rule is given: 'Read it before telling the creator a post is ready,' which pins down a real pre-condition. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. for non-recipe runs or for reading the recipe definition itself), so routing between this and the other status/read tools is implied rather than stated.

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?