Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Generate a call summary

luca_call_events_summary_generate
Destructive

Queue a fresh summary and return straight away. Poll the call event for the result.

Instructions

Queue a fresh summary and return straight away. Poll the call event for the result.

Luca operation: POST /api/call-events/{id}/summary Required scopes: call_events:write Required OAuth scope: luca:draft; data sensitivity: full_content 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>"
    },
    "name": "luca_call_events_summary_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: async/queued semantics, the required Idempotency-Key and how to supply it, the required scope (call_events:write), OAuth scope luca:draft, and full_content sensitivity. The one gap is the destructiveHint=true annotation, which suggests an existing summary may be overwritten, but the description never says what is replaced or lost.

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?

Front-loaded with the two facts that matter most (queues a job, returns immediately), then short scannable lines for operation, scopes, idempotency, and workspace override. Slightly boilerplate-heavy with separate scope/OAuth/sensitivity lines, but every line carries operational 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?

For an async mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers polling, auth scopes, idempotency, and workspace targeting. The only material omission is whether generating a summary overwrites an existing one, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 75%, and the description reinforces the two override parameters (workspaceId/workspaceSlug) and the idempotencyKey fallback behavior. The required `id` has no schema description, but the 'POST /api/call-events/{id}/summary' line makes clear it is the call event id, filling that 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Queue a fresh summary') and adds the key behavioral fact that it returns immediately. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling luca_call_events_summary_replace, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 concrete operational guidance — call this, then poll the call event for the result — which tells the agent how to use the tool in an async workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives (summary_replace) or stating when not to use it, so no exclusions are provided.

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