Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete a lead note

luca_leads_notes_delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove one coach note from a lead and leave the rest of the timeline alone. This is how a note filed by mistake gets taken back.

Instructions

Remove one coach note from a lead and leave the rest of the timeline alone. This is how a note filed by mistake gets taken back.

Luca operation: DELETE /api/leads/{id}/notes/{noteId} 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>",
      "noteId": "<noteId>"
    },
    "name": "luca_leads_notes_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
noteIdYes
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. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the required scopes (leads:write), the luca:draft OAuth scope, redacted data sensitivity, and the Idempotency-Key requirement with server-side fallback behavior. It also confirms deletion is scoped to a single note, which is exactly the reassurance an agent 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?

The corrective-action sentence is front-loaded and does the heavy lifting, followed by a compact metadata block. The scope/endpoint/OAuth lines are somewhat boilerplate but each carries operational value for a destructive call.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so return values and safety profile are covered; the description supplies auth, idempotency, and workspace-override context. Minor gaps remain: error cases (missing note, 404, permission failure) and explicit identification of `id` as the lead id are not stated.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning: workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default, and idempotencyKey is optional with server generation on omission. The endpoint line clarifies that {id} is the lead and {noteId} the note, though neither is spelled out in prose.

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 precise verb and resource ("Remove one coach note from a lead") and bounds the scope with "leave the rest of the timeline alone," immediately separating it from the add-note sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this deletes without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"This is how a note filed by mistake gets taken back" gives a clear use case and implicitly frames it as a corrective action rather than routine editing. It does not explicitly name luca_leads_notes_add as the inverse alternative or state when not to delete, so it falls short of the top band.

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