GenFlick

resolve film studio production review

native.resolve_film_studio_production_review

DestructiveIdempotent

Apply one fingerprinted Film choice: speaking voices/auto priority, optional refs/auto trim, voice policy, pacing or continuity. Preserve required refs, accepted jobs, quality gates, Stop and unrelated edits. Authorized supervision covers ordinary budget choices, not waiving requested voice match/continuity. Check remaining blockers; saving does not generate media.

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.resolve_film_studio_production_review"
  }
}

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true. The description adds substantive context beyond them: it lists what must be preserved (required refs, accepted jobs, quality gates, Stop, unrelated edits), limits authorized supervision to ordinary budget choices and not waiving requested voice match/continuity, and clarifies that saving does not generate media. It still does not detail precisely what is overwritten or how irreversibility manifests, keeping it short of exhaustive.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and choice types, then safeguards and side-effect clarification. Dense but no filler; every sentence contributes operational context.

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?

For a destructive, nested, six-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, choice categories, preservation constraints, authorization limits, blocker check, and media-generation caveat. The remaining gap is precise parameter-to-choice mapping and explicit workflow routing, but the output schema handles return values.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must add some meaning. It maps the broad choice categories to the enum ('speaking voices/auto priority, optional refs/auto trim, voice policy, pacing or continuity') but does not explain which choice kind requires which fields, nor clarify work_id, request_key, or expected_review_fingerprint beyond schema labels.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('one fingerprinted Film choice') and enumerates the choice categories: speaking voices/auto priority, optional refs/auto trim, voice policy, pacing, continuity. It does not explicitly name the sibling read_film_studio_production_review or say 'resolve a production review,' so it is clear but not fully differentiated from the read/review siblings.

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?

It implies use when a fingerprinted production-review choice is ready to apply and says to check remaining blockers, and it warns that saving does not generate media. It does not explicitly say to call read_film_studio_production_review first, when not to use this tool, or which sibling handles inspection versus resolution.

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?