Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read open call slots

luca_bookings_availability
Read-onlyIdempotent

List open slots the coach can actually be booked into. Check this before booking.

Instructions

List open slots the coach can actually be booked into. Check this before booking.

Luca operation: GET /api/bookings/availability Required scopes: bookings: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_bookings_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / properties / end / description
      Added value: +"End of the time range, exclusive. Defaults to 7 days after start."
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / properties / start / description
      Added value: +"Start of the time range, inclusive. Defaults to now."
  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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the auth surface: required scopes bookings:read and luca:read, data sensitivity 'redacted', no idempotency key needed, and the fact it falls back to an environment-configured default workspace. It still doesn't describe the returned shape or how availability is computed (calendar sync state, provider differences).

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 actionable sentence is front-loaded, but several lines are generated metadata (Luca operation, required scopes, idempotency boilerplate) that pad the definition. Still efficiently short overall with no filler prose.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, ordering relative to booking, auth scopes, and workspace defaults. The remaining gap is guidance on the filter parameters that drive what slots come back.

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 67%, and only start/end carry inline descriptions. The description compensates for workspaceId/workspaceSlug by explaining the default-workspace override, but the nested query parameters (leadId, provider, timezone, calendarId, eventTypeId) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving real gaps.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List open slots the coach can actually be booked into'), and 'actually be booked into' distinguishes it from a static schedule listing. It is not explicitly differentiated by name from close siblings like luca_bookings_managed_availability or luca_bookings_types_schedule, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

'Check this before booking' gives a concrete ordering constraint relative to the write tools (luca_bookings_create, luca_book_call). It does not name when-not to use it or point at luca_bookings_managed_availability / luca_bookings_types_schedule as alternatives for differing needs.

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