Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read Luca-managed call slots

luca_bookings_managed_availability
Read-onlyIdempotent

List open slots for one of Luca's own call types, with calendar conflicts already removed.

Instructions

List open slots for one of Luca's own call types, with calendar conflicts already removed.

Luca operation: GET /api/bookings/managed-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

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "luca_bookings_managed_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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."
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "query"
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: required scopes, redacted data sensitivity, workspace override behavior, and the meaningful detail that calendar conflicts are pre-removed. The line "Does not require idempotency" sits awkwardly beside idempotentHint=true but is about idempotency keys, not the operation's nature, so it reads as redundant rather than contradictory.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a compact metadata block. The scope/sensitivity lines are boilerplate but each carries actionable constraint information; nothing is padding, though the block format is denser than needed.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth scope, workspace selection, and the conflict-free semantics. The remaining gap is guidance on the two required nested parameters and on choosing this tool over luca_bookings_availability.

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%, so the baseline is roughly met. The description restates the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override that the schema already documents, but says nothing about the nested `query` object's required fields (bookingTypeId, timezone) or what timezone controls — the most error-prone part of the call.

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 and resource ("List open slots") scoped to "one of Luca's own call types" and adds the key behavioral qualifier that calendar conflicts are already removed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling luca_bookings_availability, so an agent still has to infer which availability endpoint applies.

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?

Use is only implied by "for one of Luca's own call types" — an agent can guess this is for Luca-managed booking types rather than externally synced calendars, but the description never says when not to use it or names luca_bookings_availability as the alternative. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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