Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Mark an insight actioned

luca_insights_mark_actioned
DestructiveIdempotent

Record that the thing an insight asked for was actually done. Use it after doing the work, not instead of it.

Instructions

Record that the thing an insight asked for was actually done. Use it after doing the work, not instead of it.

Luca operation: POST /api/insights/{id}/action Required scopes: insights:write Required OAuth scope: luca:draft; data sensitivity: redacted 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_insights_mark_actioned"
  }
}

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

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 declare the mutation/idempotency profile, but the description adds real context beyond them: the underlying POST endpoint, required insights:write scope, OAuth scope luca:draft, and redacted data sensitivity. It still leaves the destructiveHint=true behavior unexplained — nothing says what prior state is overwritten when an insight is re-actioned.

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 purpose sentence and the 'after the work' caveat are front-loaded and earn their place; the operational metadata block is compact. Minor redundancy between the Idempotency-Key requirement line and the schema's idempotencyKey description keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and auth scope, idempotency and workspace override are all covered. What is missing is the re-action/already-actioned behavior and any indication of what the destructive hint implies for the insight record.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 75% and all three optional parameters already carry descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description's idempotencyKey guidance and workspace override note largely restate what the schema already says, adding no format or fallback detail beyond it.

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: 'Record that the thing an insight asked for was actually done' — an agent can tell this is the actioned-state mutation on an insight, distinct from the neighboring mark_read and dismiss tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the name 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?

'Use it after doing the work, not instead of it' gives a clear positive condition and a warning against misuse as a substitute for the underlying work. It does not name the alternatives (luca_insights_mark_read, luca_insights_dismiss) or say what to do when the insight was only partially completed, so exclusions are absent.

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