GenFlick

Resume this task's accepted command when its Film chat is paused, without starting a duplicate prompt

native.resume_film_work

DestructiveIdempotent

Resume this task's accepted command when its Film chat is paused, without starting a duplicate prompt. It never interrupts another response and never overrides a newer Stop, cancellation or access change.

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.resume_film_work"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, and the description usefully explains the non-interruption and no-duplicate guarantees that sit behind the idempotency hint. It does not disclose what the resumed command may actually do (generation/spend/writes) despite destructiveHint=true, nor any prerequisite that the work must already be accepted, so the behavioral picture stays partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the safety caveat second; nothing is padded or repeated. It is on the terse side for a six-parameter, destructive tool, but no sentence is waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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 described, but for a destructive, five-required-parameter resume operation the description omits the acceptance/session prerequisites, the meaning of the catalog-version and skill-proof inputs, and what the resumed command may do. An agent could not assemble a valid call from this definition plus the schema alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description supplies no meaning for any of the six parameters. The three undocumented-but-required inputs — work_id, arguments.delegation_id and request_key — are explained nowhere, and the description does not clarify how request_key relates to the 'no duplicate prompt' promise.

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 states a specific verb and resource: resume this task's accepted command when its Film chat is paused, and adds a non-goal (no duplicate prompt). That is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as native.continue_work, native.accept_film_work or native.direct_work, which an agent will see in the same list.

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?

The trigger condition is stated ('when its Film chat is paused') and the boundary cases are excluded ('never overrides a newer Stop, cancellation or access change'), which is real usage guidance. However, no alternative tool is named, so an agent deciding between resume_film_work, continue_work and accept_film_work gets no routing help.

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?