GenFlick

save film studio final prompt

native.save_film_studio_final_prompt

DestructiveIdempotent

Save an explicitly requested advanced final-text edit, or explicitly return to source mode. Requires the fingerprint and draft revision from read_film_studio_final_prompt. Does not generate. Never clear a creator's final edit merely to unblock ordinary generation; source/settings/refs remain separate.

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.save_film_studio_final_prompt"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes further by stating 'Does not generate', by scoping destruction to the creator's final edit, and by requiring optimistic-concurrency tokens from the read tool. That concurrency/sequencing detail is not visible in the annotations and directly affects call safety. It does not describe the response or what happens to related source/settings/refs beyond saying they 'remain separate'.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the prerequisite rule following immediately. The final clause ('source/settings/refs remain separate') is slightly cryptic but carries useful scope information. Little wasted wording overall.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a destructive, idempotent write with concurrency tokens, and the description covers the key agent-facing concerns: explicit-request gate, required prior read, non-generation, and the prohibition on clearing edits to unblock generation. Remaining field-level detail (read_skills, expected_catalog_version) is already documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does explain the source of expected_fingerprint and expected_draft_revision and clarifies the two-mode behavior behind the mode enum. However, top-level parameters such as work_id and request_key get no mention, and the description never maps the kind enum or text payload. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Save ... final-text edit') and adds a second mode ('explicitly return to source mode'), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It also names the sibling it depends on (read_film_studio_final_prompt), giving partial differentiation. The phrase 'advanced final-text edit' is jargon-heavy and assumes familiarity with the film studio prompt model, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear precondition ('explicitly requested') plus an explicit negative rule ('Never clear a creator's final edit merely to unblock ordinary generation'), which is real when-not guidance. It also establishes call ordering by requiring the fingerprint and draft revision from read_film_studio_final_prompt. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for ordinary generation, so the alternative 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?