Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List the post-call work

luca_post_call_queue
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return everything waiting on the coach after a call: calls that still need a report on how they went, and attended calls with no revenue outcome recorded.

Instructions

Return everything waiting on the coach after a call: calls that still need a report on how they went, and attended calls with no revenue outcome recorded. The two halves are tracked separately by the API, so a call can sit on one list and not the other. An item leaves the list once the coach reports how the call went and what it was worth. Example: call with {} after a day of calls.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "luca_post_call_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceIdNoOptional Luca workspace id override.
workspaceSlugNoOptional Luca workspace slug override.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context on top: the two halves are tracked separately server-side, a call can appear on one and not the other, and an item is removed once a report and value are recorded. That exit condition is the sort of lifecycle detail an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of describing ordering or how large the list can get.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the lifecycle rule, in four short sentences with little waste. The trailing example is slightly cryptic in its phrasing ('call with {} after a day of calls') and is the weakest line, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers what qualifies an item, why the halves are separate, and when an item drops off, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly.

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 100% and both parameters (workspaceId, workspaceSlug) are optional overrides already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the implicit signal that the call works with no arguments ('call with {}'); it says nothing about when a workspace override would be appropriate.

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 ('Return everything waiting on the coach after a call') and then decomposes it into the two concrete item types: calls needing a report and attended calls with no revenue outcome. That is far more than a restatement of the title. It loses a point because it never names the closely overlapping siblings (luca_call_events_needing_feedback, luca_bookings_needs_outcome), so an agent cannot tell from this text whether to use this queue or those lists.

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 example 'call with {} after a day of calls' implies a usage moment (a coach's end-of-day sweep) and the zero-argument call style, which is helpful. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling tools that cover the same underlying data, so selection between them is left to inference.

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