Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Approve a drafted reply and send it

luca_approve_and_send
Destructive

Approves a pending review-queue draft and sends it through the lead’s channel after human review; requires confirm: true and can replace the draft with finalBody.

Instructions

Approve a pending review-queue draft and dispatch it through the lead's channel. THIS SENDS A REAL MESSAGE TO A REAL PERSON — only call it after a human has reviewed and intends to send. Pass confirm: true to proceed. Optional finalBody replaces the draft text before sending. Example: { reviewQueueId, confirm: true }.

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": {
      "reviewQueueId": "<reviewQueueId>"
    },
    "name": "luca_approve_and_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoThis tool has a real-world side effect: it messages real leads, books, moves, or cancels a call, changes a lead's consent, imports leads, writes to a connected calendar or CRM, sends workspace events to an outside URL, or re-triggers downstream automations. Pass confirm: true to proceed; the call is rejected without it.
finalBodyNoOptional edited body to send instead of the drafted text.
workspaceIdNoOptional Luca workspace id override.
reviewQueueIdYesThe review-queue item to approve.
workspaceSlugNoOptional Luca workspace slug override.
idempotencyKeyNoReuse the same key when retrying this exact approval.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.2
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / firstApproval
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by spelling out the consequence in human terms ('THIS SENDS A REAL MESSAGE TO A REAL PERSON') and the human-review precondition. The confirm:true requirement largely restates the schema's confirm description, and it does not clarify retry/idempotency behavior given the idempotencyKey parameter alongside idempotentHint=false.

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?

The irreversible-effect warning is front-loaded in capitals where it belongs, followed by the precondition and an example. Slightly redundant in repeating the confirm:true instruction already carried by the schema.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations declare destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is well covered. For a 6-parameter mutation, the remaining gap is what happens on partial failure or retry, which the description leaves implicit.

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 schema already explains confirm, finalBody, idempotencyKey and the workspace overrides. The description's notes on finalBody and the usage example add only marginal meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 pair: approving a pending review-queue draft and dispatching it through the lead's channel. An agent knows exactly what the call does, though it never distinguishes itself from named siblings such as luca_review_queue_approve or luca_conversations_send.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — 'only call it after a human has reviewed and intends to send' — which is real when-to-use guidance for a side-effecting tool. It does not name alternatives or say when to prefer the sibling approve/send tools instead.

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