Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create a guest link for a booking

luca_bookings_guest_links_create
Destructive

Create revocable reschedule and cancel links for a booking so leads can change or cancel calls without an account; replaces existing shared links.

Instructions

Mint revocable reschedule and cancel links for one booking, so a lead can move the call without an account. This replaces the booking's current links, so any link already shared stops working.

Luca operation: POST /api/bookings/{id}/guest-links Required scopes: bookings:write Required OAuth scope: luca:queue_ops; data sensitivity: redacted Requires Idempotency-Key. Provide idempotencyKey for safe retries, or the server will generate one. Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "luca_bookings_guest_links_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyYes
workspaceIdNoOptional Luca workspace id override.
workspaceSlugNoOptional Luca workspace slug override.
idempotencyKeyNoStable key for safe retries. If omitted, the MCP server generates a unique key for this call.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the destructive side effect precisely: current links are replaced and any link already shared stops working, matching the destructiveHint=true annotation and adding concrete impact detail. It also adds operational context beyond the annotations: required scope bookings:write, the luca:queue_ops OAuth scope, redacted data sensitivity, and the Idempotency-Key requirement with server-side generation fallback.

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 core behavior and the destructive replacement warning are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the remaining metadata is separated into short lines. A few lines such as the raw route and scope list are operational boilerplate, but none of them are filler.

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 destructive mutation with five parameters, the description covers side effects, auth scopes, retry safety, and workspace scoping, and an output schema exists to explain the response. The only notable gap is guidance on choosing an expiration window for the minted links.

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 60%, and the description restates idempotencyKey guidance that the schema already contains, though it adds real context that the workspace override falls back to the environment-configured default. The expiresInHours parameter, the main lever controlling link lifetime, is never explained in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Mint revocable reschedule and cancel links for one booking') plus the business intent ('so a lead can move the call without an account'), which makes it clearly distinct from the revoke and other booking-creation siblings.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use (a lead needs to reschedule or cancel without an account) and an important warning that the call replaces existing links. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, e.g. when only an audit-preserving revoke is wanted, which is why it is not a 5.

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