SetLuca

Official

by setluca

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Retry a booking's provider sync

luca_bookings_provider_sync_retry

Destructive

Retry a failed booking provider write-back, returning 409 for permanent failures. Requires confirm and an idempotency key to prevent unsafe duplicate syncs.

Instructions

Retry a failed write-back to the booking provider. A permanent failure returns 409 rather than retrying forever.

Luca operation: POST /api/bookings/{id}/provider-sync/retry 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. Destructive: has a real-world side effect. You must pass confirm: true; the call is rejected without it. Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`confirm`	No	This 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.
`workspaceId`	No	Optional Luca workspace id override.
`workspaceSlug`	No	Optional Luca workspace slug override.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Stable key for safe retries. If omitted, the MCP server generates a unique key for this call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing permanent-failure 409 semantics, the idempotency-key generation fallback, required OAuth scopes, data sensitivity, and the confirm: true gate. Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, and the description adds real operational context on top.

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 and failure semantics are front-loaded, followed by structured auth and parameter notes. Slightly boilerplate-flavored (scope lines, workspace override) but each line carries actionable information.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, the confirm requirement, idempotency, and the 409 outcome. Only marginally missing is guidance on success side effects or preconditions of the retry.

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 80%, so the schema already documents confirm, workspaceId, workspaceSlug and idempotencyKey. The description mostly restates those in prose (server-generated key, workspace override) without adding format or behavioral detail the schema lacks.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Retry a failed write-back to the booking provider') and names the exact endpoint, making it unmistakable from siblings like luca_bookings_update or luca_bookings_cancel.

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?

The phrase 'retry a failed write-back' clearly scopes when to use it, and the 409 behavior tells the agent when retrying is pointless. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating preconditions such as verifying the booking is actually in a failed state.

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

Deploy Server