Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Confirm CRM field mappings

luca_integrations_crm_mappings_confirm
DestructiveIdempotent

Confirm CRM field mappings.

Instructions

Confirm CRM field mappings.

Luca operation: PUT /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/mappings 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. 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "luca_integrations_crm_mappings_confirm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyYes
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
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / properties / mappings / items / properties / transform / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description usefully adds the required scopes, the redacted data-sensitivity note, the idempotency-key retry behavior, and workspace override mechanics. What it omits is the meaningful consequence of a destructive confirm — whether existing mappings are replaced or merged, and whether the effect is immediate on live sync.

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 is front-loaded in the first line and the remaining lines are dense operational facts with no filler. It reads as a compact header block rather than prose, but nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and auth/idempotency context is solid. Given a destructive mutation with a nested 5-field payload including a `dangerous` boolean and a direction enum, the description should say what confirming actually does to existing mappings — that gap matters more than the missing field docs.

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 60% and the description only covers idempotencyKey and workspaceId/workspaceSlug, whose semantics are already spelled out in the schema. The core payload — the mappings array with lucaField, providerField, direction enum, transform, and the significant `dangerous` flag — gets no explanation at all, leaving the most consequential parameter undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Confirm CRM field mappings") and ties it to PUT /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/mappings, which pins down the operation. However, "confirm" is never unpacked — it is unclear whether this persists suggested mappings, replaces existing ones, or merely flags them approved. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling luca_integrations_crm_mappings_suggest.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling suggest tool or the connections/schema tools; the natural workflow (suggest → confirm) is left entirely implicit. The only usage-shaped content is operational (idempotency key, workspace override), not selection guidance.

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