Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update a lead

luca_leads_update
Destructive

Update a lead's display name, stage, tags, or custom fields. Tags are replaced as a whole list.

Instructions

Update a lead's display name, stage, tags, or custom fields. Tags are replaced as a whole list.

Luca operation: PATCH /api/leads/{id} 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "luca_leads_update"
  }
}

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
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / properties / customFields / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / lead / properties / customFields / 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
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that tags are replaced wholesale rather than merged, names the required `leads:write` scope and `luca:draft` OAuth scope, flags data sensitivity as full_content, and explains the Idempotency-Key contract including server-side key generation. This is exactly the kind of mutation-risk context the destructiveHint=true annotation cannot convey on its own.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single most important fact (which fields change, and that tags replace the whole list) is front-loaded in the opening two sentences. The following metadata block (HTTP operation, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, workspace override) is terse and each line carries distinct operational information.

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?

A return schema exists, so response shape need not be described, and auth/scoping/idempotency are all covered. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics for fields that are omitted and for `customFields`, which is ambiguous in a PATCH body alongside a field explicitly documented as replacing.

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%, with workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema. The description's real contribution is the replacement-vs-merge semantics for `tags`, which the schema cannot express; it does not clarify whether customFields are merged or overwritten, and the `id`/`body` params remain undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a lead") and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what surface it touches. It is clearly distinct from luca_leads_create/get/list by implication, but never names a sibling to route against.

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?

Operational guidance is present (required scopes, idempotency, workspace override), but there is no statement of when to choose this over luca_leads_field_definitions_upsert, luca_leads_identities_attach, or luca_leads_create, nor when a lead should not be updated directly. Usage is implied by the field list rather than spelled out.

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