Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenFlick

by com.genflick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

social read queue

native.social_read_queue
DestructiveIdempotent

Read the account or project posting queue with exact destination revisions, server filters, allowed decisions and a page cursor. This read is independent of calendar dates.

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_read_queue"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description presents this purely as a read, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true — that disagreement is not explained anywhere in the text. Beyond the safety question the description also says nothing about side effects, permission/auth needs, or cursor lifecycle, leaving the agent without a reliable behavioral picture.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The middle clause ('exact destination revisions, server filters, allowed decisions and a page cursor') is a dense list that would benefit from a hint about what each element is used for, but it does not waste space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the complex session-driven parameters are documented in the schema. However, for a six-parameter, nested-object, non-read-only tool with destructive annotations, the description is too thin on safety posture and on how it relates to scheduling siblings to be fully self-sufficient.

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%; the description only loosely echoes the 'filters' and 'cursor' parameters without adding syntax or allowed-value detail. It says nothing about work_id, request_key, read_skills, expected_catalog_version, or publication_proposal_id, which are the parameters that actually carry environment-specific meaning.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Read the account or project posting queue', plus the payload it returns (destination revisions, server filters, allowed decisions, page cursor). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as native.social_read_workspace or native.social_queue_command, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 one piece of scoping guidance is 'This read is independent of calendar dates', which usefully tells the agent not to expect date-bounded results. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no naming of the alternative tools (e.g., read_workspace, get_social_publication) for other queue-related needs.

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