GenFlick

social save policy

native.social_save_policy

DestructiveIdempotent

Update AI Auto-posting settings. Read policy/revision first. Publishing is free. Enable only with authorized accounts and mode. Paid writers use writerBudgetsCredits keyed by model ID, defaulting to 200 credits per calendar month; unchanged settings are preserved.

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_save_policy"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: publishing is free, paid writers draw on writerBudgetsCredits keyed by model ID with a 200-credit/month default, and unchanged settings are preserved (consistent with the idempotent hint). It does not say what an update overwrites or how revision conflicts surface.

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?

Five short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no repetition or filler. The telegraphic style ('Publishing is free.', 'Enable only with authorized accounts and mode.') occasionally reads as a list of unrelated facts rather than a coherent flow, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter, nested-object mutation with an output schema, the description covers the cost/credit model and merge semantics well but omits the revision and catalog-version handshake that the schema clearly treats as mandatory. An agent would still need the schema plus external session-bootstrap knowledge to call 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 only 50%, so the description must carry weight, but it names no parameter at all. The one domain detail it supplies, writerBudgetsCredits, is a key inside the free-form policy object rather than a schema-declared field, leaving expectedRevision, request_key, read_skills, and work_id unexplained in both places.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Update AI Auto-posting settings.' That is concrete enough to distinguish it from read-side siblings like native.social_read_workspace, but it never names the closest save siblings (native.social_save_account, native.social_save_draft, native.social_save_motion_preset) or clarifies that this tool saves policy rather than drafts.

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?

'Read policy/revision first' and 'Enable only with authorized accounts and mode' give real preconditions for calling it. However, there is no explicit routing to the sibling that reads policy, and no statement of when not to use this tool (e.g. versus saving a draft or 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?