Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Undo a call's outcome

luca_call_events_undo_outcome
DestructiveIdempotent

Undoes a mistaken call outcome such as a no_show, returning the call to the queue and stopping any pending recovery drafts. Use within 48 hours of setting the outcome.

Instructions

Clear a mistaken attendance mark and put the call back in the queue. Undoing a no_show also stops its recovery and rejects any recovery drafts waiting for review. The window is 48 hours from when the outcome was set.

Luca operation: POST /api/call-events/{id}/undo-outcome 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_undo_outcome"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), it discloses consequential side effects: undoing a no_show stops its recovery and rejects pending recovery drafts. It also surfaces the 48-hour limit, required scopes, sensitivity level, and the idempotency-key requirement, none of which the annotations convey.

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 behavioral consequences are front-loaded in the first sentence and the constraint follows. The metadata block (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) is boilerplate but each line carries operationally relevant information for invocation.

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?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation, the description covers side effects, time limit, auth scopes, idempotency handling, and workspace targeting. Return values are covered by the existing output schema, so no gap remains.

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 compensates by making the endpoint path explicit ({id} on /call-events/{id}/undo-outcome), clarifying that id identifies the call event, and explaining that idempotencyKey is required and auto-generated if omitted. It adds little about the workspace override params beyond what the schema states.

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 description gives a concrete verb and resource ('Clear a mistaken attendance mark and put the call back in the queue'), which makes the inverse relationship to luca_bookings_outcome_record obvious. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 states the operative precondition clearly: the window is 48 hours from when the outcome was set, and it explains the corrective intent ('mistaken attendance mark'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with recording a new outcome or listing when-not-to-use cases.

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