Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Record a lead's consent

luca_leads_consents_grant
Destructive

Grant explicit lead consent for a channel purpose.

Instructions

Grant explicit lead consent for a channel purpose.

Luca operation: POST /api/leads/{id}/consents Required scopes: leads:write Required OAuth scope: luca:queue_ops; 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "luca_leads_consents_grant"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyYes
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
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real operational context beyond annotations: required OAuth scope (luca:queue_ops), data sensitivity redacted, the mandatory Idempotency-Key with server-side generation fallback, and the hard rule that the call is rejected without confirm: true. It stops short of describing the actual downstream effect of recording a consent (which the schema's confirm description covers).

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 before the operational metadata block, and each line carries distinct information. Minor waste in having both 'Required scopes: leads:write' and 'Required OAuth scope: luca:queue_ops' as separate unlabeled-from-each-other lines.

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 annotations present and an output schema available, the description covers the mutation's safety and auth burden adequately for a write tool. The remaining gap is guidance on body construction (what counts as valid evidenceId and whether grantedAt defaults), which the agent must guess.

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?

It explains confirm, idempotencyKey, and the workspace overrides, but those explanations largely duplicate the schema's own parameter descriptions. The most semantically loaded parameter — the nested body object with channel, purpose, source, and evidenceId — gets no explanation, which matters given evidenceId's provenance is not obvious.

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: 'Grant explicit lead consent for a channel purpose,' plus the underlying endpoint POST /api/leads/{id}/consents. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling luca_leads_consents_revoke, so the agent must infer the complement from the tool name alone.

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?

The description implies usage (record a lead's consent for a channel/purpose) and lists prerequisites like scopes and confirm: true, but never states when to use this instead of luca_leads_consents_revoke or what evidence is sufficient to grant. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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