GenFlick

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

native.save_genads_pack

DestructiveIdempotent

Save a pack 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_pack"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the optimistic-concurrency idea ('exact observed revision') and a creation side effect at revision zero, which is real value beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying what happens on a revision mismatch or what gets overwritten in the pack.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and no padding, which is appropriate sizing. The second sentence, 'Zero creates a resource.', is syntactically ambiguous (revision zero? item count zero?) and is not clearly anchored to a parameter, so it does not fully earn its place.

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, deeply nested write tool with an output schema, and the description covers only the surface purpose. It omits failure behavior on revision conflict, what the required native skill proofs and catalog version are for, and any hint about the shape of the pack payload, all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 50%, and the big nested body (items, format, references, placement, callToAction, etc.) has no field-level documentation anywhere. The description only hints at expected_revision via 'exact observed revision'; it says nothing about read_skills, expected_catalog_version, publication_proposal_id, or the pack body structure, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on this highly nested schema.

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 and resource ('Save a pack in a linked GenAds project') plus the mechanism ('its native command and exact observed revision'), which distinguishes it from a generic save. However, the sibling set contains native.genads_save_pack, and the description never explains why an agent would pick this native variant over that one.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the near-identical sibling native.genads_save_pack is not mentioned. The trailing fragment 'Zero creates a resource.' gestures at a revision-0 creation semantic but is too terse to function as a usable rule, and prerequisites (native skills, catalog version) are left entirely to the schema descriptions.

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?