Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Revoke a lead's consent

luca_leads_consents_revoke
DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke explicit lead consent for a channel purpose.

Instructions

Revoke explicit lead consent for a channel purpose.

Luca operation: POST /api/leads/{id}/consents/revoke Required scopes: leads:write Required OAuth scope: luca:draft; 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_leads_consents_revoke"
  }
}

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
    • 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden; it adds real value by naming required scopes, the redacted data sensitivity, and that the server auto-generates an Idempotency-Key if omitted. It stops short of saying what revocation actually destroys downstream (e.g., whether queued sends are blocked), which is the one thing an agent most 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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first line, then layered metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace). The scopes line is slightly redundant ('Required scopes' and 'Required OAuth scope' in adjacent lines), but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation with an output schema available, the description covers the endpoint, auth scopes, idempotency behavior, and workspace resolution — everything needed to invoke it correctly. The gap is behavioral consequence of the revocation, which the annotations flag as destructive but do not explain.

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?

At 60% schema coverage the description does useful compensating work: it explains that consent is scoped per channel+purpose (the body fields), and clarifies that idempotencyKey is optional because the server generates one, and that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default. It does not describe the 'id' path parameter or enumerate the allowed channel/purpose values, leaving that to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('explicit lead consent') scoped to a channel purpose, plus the exact endpoint POST /api/leads/{id}/consents/revoke. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling luca_leads_consents_grant by direction of the operation 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 supplies prerequisites (leads:write scope, luca:draft OAuth scope) and retry guidance, which implies usage context, but it never states when to revoke versus when to use the grant sibling, nor any precondition such as whether the consent must currently exist. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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