GenFlick

Run a workflow from your directory on its declared native target: a project, series or saved Workshop character

native.run_workflow

DestructiveIdempotent

Run a workflow from your directory on its declared native target: a project, series or saved Workshop character. One request runs its phases and reports saved results. It is a task like any other: read it, wait for it (or set wait, as on delegate_work) and stop it with the same tools. Video phases run only once the creator has authorized video.

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.run_workflow"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: one request executes all phases and reports saved results, the call is asynchronous with read/wait/stop lifecycle handled by sibling tools, and video phases are gated on creator authorization. Those details are not derivable from readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=true/openWorldHint=true. It still doesn't explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what side effects the phases leave behind.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then lifecycle, then the video authorization caveat. No filler, though 'It is a task like any other' is a slightly vague framing that costs a few words for little routing value.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a five-required-parameter orchestration tool, however, the description omits prerequisites (session bootstrap, catalog version provenance) and refusal conditions beyond the video gate, leaving meaningful gaps for first-time invocation.

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?

At 50% schema coverage with six parameters including opaque ones (read_skills, request_key, expected_catalog_version), the description should carry more weight, but it only adds a pointer to the wait behavior 'as on delegate_work'. The nested schema does describe brief, options, allocation, project_id and workflow_id well, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (run a workflow) and enumerates the three native target kinds (project, series, Workshop character). It distinguishes itself from generic work tools by emphasizing the workflow directory and declared native target, but never names the closest sibling (native.recipe_run or native.delegate_work) as the thing it is not, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives implied usage: it is 'a task like any other' that you read, wait on, or stop with the same tools, and points to delegate_work for the wait semantics. It does not say when to choose run_workflow over native.delegate_work, native.recipe_run, or native.continue_work, which is the main routing decision an agent faces here.

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?