Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Draft a reply for a lead

luca_draft_reply
Destructive

Draft a reply for a lead, written the way the coach writes, and put it in the SetLuca review queue, where it waits for the coach to approve it. Drafting again replaces this lead's earlier unapproved draft from this tool.

Instructions

Draft a reply for a lead, written the way the coach writes, and put it in the SetLuca review queue, where it waits for the coach to approve it. Drafting again replaces this lead's earlier unapproved draft from this tool. It never sends, whatever the channel's auto-send setting. Optional guidance steers tone or content. Example: call with { leadId, guidance: "keep it short and warm" }.

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": {
      "leadId": "<leadId>"
    },
    "name": "luca_draft_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leadIdYesThe lead to draft a reply for.
guidanceNoOptional steer for tone or content of the draft.
workspaceIdNoOptional Luca workspace id override.
workspaceSlugNoOptional Luca workspace slug override.
idempotencyKeyNoReuse the same key when retrying this exact draft.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the queued-for-approval lifecycle, that re-drafting overwrites this lead's earlier unapproved draft from this tool, and that it never sends regardless of the channel's auto-send setting. It does not address the idempotencyKey retry semantics or whether drafting is asynchronous, which sibling drafting-status tools suggest is relevant.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, the overwrite rule, the never-sends guarantee, and the guidance example. The queue destination is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 a mid-complexity mutation with an output schema, it covers the essential agent questions: where the draft goes, that it is not sent, and what happens on repeat calls. Gaps remain around asynchronous drafting behavior, idempotencyKey retry usage, and workspace override semantics.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns a step up by including a concrete invocation example with leadId and guidance, showing how optional guidance is actually phrased. It adds little about workspaceId/workspaceSlug overrides or idempotencyKey, leaving those to the schema.

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 (draft a reply for a lead), plus the destination (SetLuca review queue) and the voice model (the way the coach writes). However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings like luca_leads_draft or luca_review_queue_drafting, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The context is clear — this feeds the coach review queue rather than sending — and the sentence about re-drafting replacing the earlier unapproved draft gives a useful re-invocation rule. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., regenerate, drafting status) to route against.

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