Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Suggest CRM field mappings

luca_integrations_crm_mappings_suggest
Idempotent

Suggest CRM field mappings.

Instructions

Suggest CRM field mappings.

Luca operation: POST /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/mappings/suggest 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>"
    },
    "name": "luca_integrations_crm_mappings_suggest"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false), and the description adds real context on top: required scopes (integrations:write, luca:full), data sensitivity marked 'redacted', and server-side idempotency-key generation for safe retries. It still doesn't say whether calling this persists suggestion state on the connection or whether prior suggestions are replaced, which matters for a POST.

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 purpose, then a compact block of operation/scope/idempotency/workspace facts with no filler. The endpoint path and scope lines are terse and scannable; nothing is wasted, though the raw path is mildly redundant with the tool name.

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 needn't be described, and the annotations plus scope lines cover the safety profile. But for a suggest/confirm pair inside a CRM integration, the description omits the crucial next step (what to do with the suggestions, i.e. luca_integrations_crm_mappings_confirm) and whether suggestions persist, leaving a workflow gap.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already explains workspaceId, workspaceSlug and idempotencyKey. The description only adds the 'override the default workspace configured by environment' nuance for the workspace params; the required `id` parameter (the CRM connection UUID) is never explained in either place. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Suggest CRM field mappings') and pins it to a concrete operation (POST /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/mappings/suggest). An agent knows what it does, but nothing distinguishes it from the close sibling luca_integrations_crm_mappings_confirm, which is presumably the follow-up that applies these suggestions.

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 when-to-use guidance: no prerequisites, no mention that suggestions must be confirmed via luca_integrations_crm_mappings_confirm, and no indication of what a caller does with the result. The scopes and workspace-override lines describe requirements, not usage selection, so the agent must infer the suggest-then-confirm workflow on its own.

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