Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Push a call to the CRM

luca_call_events_push_to_crm
Destructive

Send the current summary to the CRM now, without waiting out the review window. Re-pushing updates the existing note.

Instructions

Send the current summary to the CRM now, without waiting out the review window. Re-pushing updates the existing note.

Luca operation: POST /api/call-events/{id}/push-to-crm Required scopes: call_events:write Required OAuth scope: luca:full; data sensitivity: full_content 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.

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>"
    },
    "name": "luca_call_events_push_to_crm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
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.
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
provenanceNo

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds materially more: the confirm:true gate and that rejection occurs without it, the Idempotency-Key requirement and server-generated fallback for safe retries, required scopes (call_events:write, luca:full), data sensitivity level, and that re-pushing mutates an existing note rather than creating a duplicate. That is meaningful disclosure beyond annotations.

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 first sentence carries the essential behavior and is well front-loaded; the remaining bullets are scannable. Some boilerplate (the destructive explanation) duplicates the confirm parameter's schema description, so it is mildly redundant rather than wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not describe return values, and it covers everything else an agent needs: side-effect nature, confirmation gate, idempotency strategy, auth scopes, and workspace scoping. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80% and already documents confirm, workspaceId/Slug, and idempotencyKey, so the description's added value is incremental: it clarifies the override semantics ('default workspace configured by environment') and explains when an idempotencyKey matters for retries. It does not explain the id parameter's role, leaving one gap.

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 (send/push) and resource (the current call-event summary to the CRM), plus the key scope distinction: 'without waiting out the review window.' That implicitly separates it from the review-queue approval siblings (luca_review_queue_approve, luca_approve_and_send), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Send ... now, without waiting out the review window' gives a clear condition for choosing this over the review-queue path, and 'Re-pushing updates the existing note' tells the agent repeat calls are safe-ish. No explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, so it falls short of 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