GenFlick

replace document body

native.replace_document_body

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace the complete current body. The saved text is authoritative immediately and its diff remains reviewable. Read the complete document before a whole-body rewrite.

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.replace_document_body"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to establish the risk profile. It does add genuinely new behavior: the saved text is authoritative immediately (no draft/staging state) and its diff stays reviewable (recoverable via change-history tools), plus a read-before-rewrite precondition. It omits the skill-proof gating (read_skills) and the revision/concurrency contract, which are the higher-risk behaviors here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the persistence/audit consequence, then the precondition. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the ordering matches how an agent would need the information.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description only owes action, consequence, and precondition — all present. What is missing for a 6-parameter, skill-gated, revision-checked mutation is the bootstrap/skill-proof requirement and any pointer to the undo/change-review tools, which the description alludes to ("diff remains reviewable") without naming.

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 description never names a parameter. It does add one meaningful semantic — "complete current body" signals that body is a full replacement payload rather than a patch — but expected_revision, read_skills, request_key, and expected_catalog_version get no explanatory help from the description, leaving half the surface to the schema.

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 plus the scope of the operation ("Replace the complete current body", "whole-body rewrite"), which clearly separates it from partial-edit operations. It never names a sibling such as replace_studio_document_text, native.apply_document_edits, or native.find_and_replace_in_document, so the agent must infer the boundary from "complete"/"whole-body" alone.

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?

"Read the complete document before a whole-body rewrite" gives one concrete precondition and implies whole-body replacement versus targeted editing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing against the many nearby edit tools (native.apply_document_edits, native.find_and_replace_in_document, replace_studio_document_text), so usage is only implied.

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?