Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Check benchmark sharing consent

luca_analytics_benchmark_consent
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a workspace's benchmark consent state to verify whether it contributes to anonymized niche cohort percentiles and can view them.

Instructions

The coach's cross-coach benchmark opt-in state (whether this workspace contributes to and sees anonymized niche cohort percentiles). Read-only; the opt-in is changed from the app, not through this key surface.

Luca operation: GET /api/analytics/benchmark-consent Required scopes: analytics:read Required OAuth scope: luca:read; data sensitivity: redacted Does not require idempotency. Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "luca_analytics_benchmark_consent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceIdNoOptional Luca workspace id override.
workspaceSlugNoOptional Luca workspace slug override.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: required scopes (analytics:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (redacted), and the fact that idempotency is not required. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotation set.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and sentences are short. The trailing block of operation/scopes/idempotency lines reads as generated boilerplate but each line carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: auth scope, sensitivity, and workspace override behavior. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful nuance (workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace), which is slightly more than the schema's bare 'Optional Luca workspace id override' but not substantial.

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+resource (read the coach's cross-coach benchmark opt-in state) and clarifies the semantics of that state with a parenthetical definition. It implicitly separates itself from luca_analytics_benchmarks by scoping itself to consent rather than benchmark data, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear exclusion: the opt-in 'is changed from the app, not through this key surface,' telling the agent not to attempt a mutation here. It lacks a positive 'use when' statement or a named alternative tool, so the routing guidance is one-directional.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools