Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Disconnect a knowledge source

luca_knowledge_sources_disconnect
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a knowledge source and remove every suggestion it generated; approved items remain in the coach profile.

Instructions

Delete a knowledge source and every suggestion it produced, whatever their status; values the coach already approved stay in the profile, because approving copies them there.

Luca operation: DELETE /api/knowledge/sources/{id} Required scopes: knowledge:write Required OAuth scope: luca:queue_ops; 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_knowledge_sources_disconnect"
  }
}

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the cascade semantics, the non-obvious persistence guarantee for approved values, the required 'knowledge:write' and 'luca:queue_ops' scopes, and the redacted data-sensitivity class. It also explains the Idempotency-Key contract, including the server-generating fallback, which is exactly the retry-safety context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 most important fact — cascade deletion with approved values surviving — is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact block of endpoint, scope, idempotency, and workspace facts. The trailing 'data sensitivity: redacted' phrase is cryptic filler that adds little, but otherwise there is no padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, idempotent mutation with four parameters and an output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what survives, the authorization scopes required, retry safety, and workspace scoping. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without consulting another source.

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 75%, with 'id' undocumented in the schema but obvious from the resource name. The description adds real meaning for the two optional overrides by framing workspaceId/workspaceSlug as overriding the environment-configured default, and clarifies that idempotencyKey may be omitted because the server generates one.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a knowledge source') and immediately quantifies the blast radius ('every suggestion it produced, whatever their status'), which separates it from suggestion-level tools such as luca_knowledge_reject_suggestion even without naming them. It also carves out what survives ('values the coach already approved stay in the profile, because approving copies them there'), so the resource boundary is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context for when the operation is appropriate by explaining that the deletion cascades to all suggestions regardless of status, which tells an agent this is the source-level removal path rather than a suggestion-level one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., 'to remove one suggestion use reject_suggestion instead'), so routing still requires inference from sibling names.

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