GenFlick

social queue command

native.social_queue_command

DestructiveIdempotent

Apply one explicitly requested queue decision to an observed destination and revision. Approval only adds ordinary queue eligibility; prioritization is a separate action. Fixed or submitted delivery is protected.

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_queue_command"
  }
}

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?

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses two substantive traits: approval grants only ordinary eligibility while prioritization is separate, and fixed/submitted deliveries are protected from change. The 'observed destination and revision' phrasing also signals optimistic-concurrency semantics. It still omits failure behavior on stale revisions or which actions are rejected for protected items.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the approval/prioritization caveat and the protection rule. No filler, though the middle sentence could be attached more directly to the action enum it qualifies.

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?

The tool is genuinely complex: a nested arguments object with a 10-value action enum plus move/position fields. The description covers the concurrency model and one guardrail, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It is still insufficient for selecting among ten actions, each of which presumably requires a different parameter subset.

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 coverage is 50%, so several parameters (read_skills, publication_proposal_id, expected_catalog_version) already carry their own descriptions. The description adds real meaning by framing destinationId/expectedRevision as 'observed' values, implying they must be read rather than guessed. It adds nothing about the 10-value action enum or the position/afterId/beforeId move semantics.

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: 'Apply one explicitly requested queue decision to an observed destination and revision.' An agent knows it mutates queue state under optimistic concurrency. It does not name any sibling (e.g., social_read_queue, social_move_posts, social_cancel_post), so the boundary with neighbors must be inferred.

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?

'Apply one explicitly requested queue decision' implies the call must be user-driven and singular, and the sentence on approval vs. prioritization gives real routing guidance between two actions. However, no sibling is named as the alternative for reading state first or for other queue operations, and no preconditions (e.g., read the queue to get the revision) are spelled out.

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?