Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Define a custom lead field

luca_leads_field_definitions_upsert
DestructiveIdempotent

Create or update a custom lead field definition.

Instructions

Create or update a custom lead field definition.

Luca operation: POST /api/leads/field-definitions 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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "luca_leads_field_definitions_upsert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / properties / options / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}
    • 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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description usefully adds auth context (leads:write, luca:draft scope, redacted data) and idempotency behavior (server generates a key if omitted), which goes beyond the annotations. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description never explains what is destructive: whether changing a field's type or options drops existing lead values. That is the single most important behavioral fact for this tool, so it remains undisclosed.

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 description is short, front-loaded with the action, and structured into scannable lines for endpoint, scopes, and idempotency. The metadata lines are dense but each carries information; only the workspace-override sentence is somewhat boilerplate.

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 need no explanation, and auth and idempotency are covered. What is missing is what an agent most needs before calling: the effect of re-using an existing key, and what destruction occurs when a definition changes. For a destructive upsert with a nested body, that leaves a real 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%, and the description only restates the workspace override and idempotency key, which the schema already documents. It adds nothing about the body fields: whether key is immutable after creation, whether options is required for the select type, or what changing a type does to stored data. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

The first line states a specific verb and resource: "Create or update a custom lead field definition." This distinguishes it from luca_leads_field_definitions_list and from luca_leads_update, but it doesn't mention them by name, so the differentiation comes from the noun phrase rather than explicit routing.

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?

Usage is only implied: the scope requirement (leads:write) and the endpoint hint at a definition-management operation, but nothing says when to use this rather than luca_leads_update or luca_leads_field_definitions_list. No when-not guidance is provided.

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