GenFlick

social combine showreel

native.social_combine_showreel

DestructiveIdempotent

Combine 4–12 observed Ready posts from one account and source home into one showreel with a new caption. Originals remain undoable until publishing starts.

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.social_combine_showreel"
  }
}

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes beyond them with a genuinely useful reversibility fact: originals stay undoable until publishing starts, which tells an agent how far it can back out. It omits other behavioral context such as credit consumption (the maxCredits parameter) and the approval role of publication_proposal_id.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the actionable constraint (4–12 Ready posts, one account, one source home) and then the reversibility guarantee. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

For a nested, highly destructive, session-bound mutation with five required parameters, the description covers the core semantics but not the session/bootstrap mechanics or credit limits. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, which keeps this at a minimum-viable level rather than inadequate.

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%, and the prose only maps loosely onto parameters ('one account' → connectionId, posts → members, 'source home'). The required request_key, read_skills, expected_catalog_version bootstrap fields and maxCredits get no explanation, and 'with a new caption' refers to no visible schema parameter, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 names a specific verb (combine) and a concrete resource (one showreel) produced from 4–12 Ready posts on one account in a single source home. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling native.social_undo_showreel by intent, though it never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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 preconditions '4–12 observed Ready posts' and 'from one account and source home' imply when it is applicable, and implicitly rule out cross-account mixing. However, it does not state when to use this versus native.social_undo_showreel, native.social_save_draft, or native.social_schedule_draft, nor mention prerequisites like a publication proposal for scheduling.

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?