Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read the scorecard

luca_reports_scorecard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a sales scorecard for a chosen period to track booked and completed calls, show rate, won and lost deals, draft approvals, and hours saved.

Instructions

Read the sales scorecard for a window: calls booked and completed, show rate, won and lost, draft approvals, and hours saved.

Luca operation: GET /api/reports/scorecard Required scopes: reports:read Required OAuth scope: luca:read; data sensitivity: redacted Does not require idempotency. Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment.

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_reports_scorecard"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "period": {
+      "enum": [
+        "last_7_days",
+        "this_month"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / previous
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "callsBooked": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "callsCompleted": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "callsNoShow": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "draftsApproved": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "draftsEdited": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "draftsRejected": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "draftsSent": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "hoursSaved": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "lost": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "medianFirstResponseSeconds": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "notAFit": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "showRate": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "winRate": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "window": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "end": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "start": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "won": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: the underlying operation (GET /api/reports/scorecard), required scopes (reports:read, luca:read), and redacted data sensitivity. However, it says nothing about freshness/latency of the report data or what happens when the default workspace is unset.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the operational block is compact and scannable. The scope/operation lines are somewhat boilerplate but each carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 need not be described. For a low-complexity read with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, scopes, workspace override, and side-effect profile; the only real omission is default period behavior, which is minor.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the weakest spot by explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace, which the schema does not state. The nested 'period' parameter is only glossed as 'a window' with no mention of the two enum values or the default, so that gap remains.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('sales scorecard') and enumerates the exact metrics returned: calls booked and completed, show rate, won/lost, draft approvals, hours saved. That level of enumeration distinguishes it from the broader analytics siblings, though it never names an alternative report such as luca_reports_morning to make the boundary explicit.

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: 'for a window' plus the period enum suggests a short-term summary read, and the workspace override sentence explains a scoping choice rather than when to pick this tool. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to sibling report or analytics tools.

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