Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get a campaign simulation

luca_campaigns_simulations_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a campaign simulation run with its trace to inspect outcomes and troubleshoot campaign scenarios.

Instructions

Get a campaign simulation run with trace.

Luca operation: GET /api/campaigns/{id}/simulations/{simulationId} Required scopes: campaigns:read Required OAuth scope: luca:read; data sensitivity: full_content 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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "simulationId": "<simulationId>"
    },
    "name": "luca_campaigns_simulations_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
workspaceIdNoOptional Luca workspace id override.
simulationIdYes
workspaceSlugNoOptional Luca workspace slug override.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.2
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / simulatedFrom
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds auth scope requirements (campaigns:read, luca:read) and a data sensitivity level of 'full_content', which matters for an agent handling output. The 'Does not require idempotency' line is boilerplate restating the annotation and adds little.

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 action, then a compact block of operation/scope/workspace facts. A couple of lines (OAuth scope, idempotency note) are low-value boilerplate but the overall size is tight for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers endpoint, scopes, sensitivity, and workspace targeting. The only gap is that 'with trace' is never elaborated, leaving the agent unsure what the trace payload contains.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates: the endpoint template maps the bare 'id' to a campaign id and 'simulationId' to the simulation, resolving real ambiguity in the schema. It also explains that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override a default workspace set by environment, which is more than the schema's 'Optional Luca workspace id override.'

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 ('Get a campaign simulation run') and adds a distinguishing detail ('with trace') that separates it from the list/create simulation siblings. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the singular-by-id framing is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the single-item fetch keyed by campaign id plus simulationId. It supplies useful operational context (required scopes, workspace override behavior) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus luca_campaigns_simulations_list or a full campaign fetch.

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