Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Save a CRM connection's webhook settings

luca_integrations_crm_connections_webhooks_setup
Destructive

Save a CRM connection's webhook target URL and secret as a pending setup, without registering anything in the CRM yet. Requires confirm: true for this write.

Instructions

Save a CRM connection's webhook target and secret as pending. Nothing is registered in the CRM yet.

Luca operation: POST /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/webhooks/setup Required scopes: integrations:write Required OAuth scope: luca:full; data sensitivity: redacted Requires Idempotency-Key. Provide idempotencyKey for safe retries, or the server will generate one. Destructive: has a real-world side effect. You must pass confirm: true; the call is rejected without it. 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_integrations_crm_connections_webhooks_setup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyNo
confirmNoThis tool has a real-world side effect: it messages real leads, books, moves, or cancels a call, changes a lead's consent, imports leads, writes to a connected calendar or CRM, sends workspace events to an outside URL, or re-triggers downstream automations. Pass confirm: true to proceed; the call is rejected without it.
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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value: it clarifies nothing is registered in the CRM yet, that confirm:true is mandatory or the call is rejected, that an Idempotency-Key is required, the OAuth scope, and workspace override behavior. Minor tension: idempotentHint=false coexists with "safe retries" via idempotencyKey, which is explained by the key rather than native idempotency.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by compact operational metadata (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, confirm, workspace). The boilerplate lines are dense but each carries a constraint the agent needs; nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description need not explain returns, and it does cover safety, auth, and idempotency. It falls short on the request body: the targetUrl/enabled fields and the missing "secret" are unexplained, which is the main gap for a 6-parameter nested-object tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% and the description repeats rather than enriches it (confirm, idempotencyKey, workspaceId/Slug). More importantly, the description promises a "secret" is saved, but the body schema allows only `enabled` and `targetUrl` with additionalProperties:false, so an agent following the prose would send an invalid field.

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?

"Save a CRM connection's webhook target and secret as pending" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "Nothing is registered in the CRM yet" distinguishes this staging call from a real registration/update. It does not name a sibling (e.g. luca_webhooks_subscriptions_create) explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary from the tool name.

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 only implied: the "as pending" framing suggests this is a pre-registration step, and prerequisites (integrations:write, luca:full, confirm, idempotencyKey) are listed. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement and no named alternative for actually activating the webhook.

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