Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Apply a lead import

luca_leads_import_apply
Destructive

Apply a mapped lead import with consent evidence.

Instructions

Apply a mapped lead import with consent evidence.

Luca operation: POST /api/leads/imports/apply Required scopes: leads:write Required OAuth scope: luca:queue_ops; data sensitivity: full_content 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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "luca_leads_import_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / properties / rows / items / 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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations it names the required scopes (leads:write, luca:queue_ops), flags full_content data sensitivity, and states the concrete guardrail that the call is rejected without confirm: true. It stops short of disclosing failure semantics (partial import rollback, per-row error behavior) for a destructive bulk write.

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 core capability is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by short metadata lines; nothing is padded. There is minor redundancy where confirm and idempotencyKey semantics duplicate the schema text.

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 not be explained, and the safety profile is covered. Still missing for a destructive bulk import: the row limit/size expectations, whether the import is atomic or partial, and the explicit relationship to the preview tool.

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 coverage is 80% and confirm, workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey already carry schema descriptions that the prose largely restates. The required, most complex parameter — body, with its rows/mapping/consents structure and 1000-row cap — gets no explanation in the description.

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 ("Apply a mapped lead import with consent evidence") and is backed by the exact endpoint. It does not, however, contrast itself with the obvious sibling luca_leads_import_preview, so an agent must infer the preview-then-apply workflow.

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 word "mapped" implies a prior mapping step exists, and the confirm/idempotency notes imply operational context, but nothing states when to use this instead of luca_leads_import_preview or what prerequisites must be satisfied first. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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