Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Save a concept in a linked GenAds project using its native command and exact observed revision

native.save_genads_concept
DestructiveIdempotent

Save a concept in a linked GenAds project using its native command and exact observed revision. Zero creates a resource.

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_genads_concept"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes
argumentsYes
read_skillsYesExact 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_keyYes
publication_proposal_idNoFor native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
expected_catalog_versionYesFor 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — "Zero creates a resource" reveals upsert semantics where expected_revision=0 means create rather than update — plus an implied optimistic-concurrency requirement via "exact observed revision." It still says nothing about what a destructive overwrite actually replaces or what happens on revision mismatch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded, with no padding. The second sentence, "Zero creates a resource," is terse to the point of ambiguity — the subject (expected_revision) is unstated, so it reads as a fragment rather than a clear rule.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with a deeply nested body (title, angle, hook, hypothesis, format, plus optional evidence and recipe links), five required top-level parameters, and only 50% schema description coverage. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves work_id, request_key, the read_skills proof requirement, and the revision-conflict failure mode entirely unaddressed for a high-stakes write.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the most consequential parameter: expected_revision is the exact observed revision, with zero meaning creation. It adds little for work_id, arguments, or request_key, which remain undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete verb and resource ("Save a concept in a linked GenAds project"), but the sibling list contains a near-identical native.genads_save_concept, and nothing here distinguishes the two or explains which one an agent should reach for. The trailing phrase "using its native command and exact observed revision" gestures at the mechanism without clarifying scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of the closest alternative, native.genads_save_concept. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the session bootstrap or read_skills proof, so the agent must infer the entry conditions entirely from the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GenFlick toolsInspect
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