Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Draft a reply to a lead

luca_leads_draft
Destructive

Draft a reply for a lead, written the way the coach writes, and put it in the review queue for the coach to approve. Drafting again replaces this lead's earlier unapproved draft from this tool.

Instructions

Draft a reply for a lead, written the way the coach writes, and put it in the review queue for the coach to approve. Drafting again replaces this lead's earlier unapproved draft from this tool. It never sends, whatever the channel's auto-send setting. Optional guidance steers tone or content.

Luca operation: POST /api/leads/{id}/draft Required scopes: leads:write Required OAuth scope: luca:draft; data sensitivity: full_content 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_leads_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyNo
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
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states that a second call replaces this lead's earlier unapproved draft from this tool, guarantees no send regardless of auto-send settings, and discloses required scopes, full_content data sensitivity, and the Idempotency-Key contract. That is exactly the operational context destructiveHint/openWorldHint alone cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and the key replacement/no-send guarantees are front-loaded in the first two sentences; the API/scope/idempotency block follows. Somewhat dense with boilerplate metadata, but each line carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 mutating, open-world tool the description covers the mutation semantics (replacement of prior drafts), the safety boundary (never sends), auth/scopes, workspace scoping, and retry behavior; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 60%, and the description compensates where it is thin: it explains that the nested `guidance` string steers tone or content (the schema gives it no description), and reiterates the workspace override and idempotencyKey retry semantics. The `id` parameter is only implicitly a lead UUID, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: drafts a reply in the coach's voice and places it in the review queue for approval, and explicitly states it never sends. Clear on its own, but it never names the near-identical sibling luca_draft_reply or luca_review_queue_regenerate, so an agent must infer the boundary from schemas.

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?

"It never sends, whatever the channel's auto-send setting" implies the agent should reach for luca_approve_and_send / luca_conversations_send when sending is wanted, but no alternative is named. Re-drafting replacement behavior is stated, but there is no guidance on when to draft versus regenerate or cancel a queued draft.

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