Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Retry a draft's failed media

luca_review_queue_media_retry
Destructive

Retry a failed voice-note transcription so the draft can be reviewed. Only re-transcribes; never redrafts or sends.

Instructions

Retry a failed voice-note transcription so the draft can be reviewed. Only re-transcribes; never redrafts or sends.

Luca operation: POST /api/review-queue/{id}/media/{mediaId}/retry Required scopes: review_queue:write Required OAuth scope: luca:queue_ops; 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>",
      "mediaId": "<mediaId>"
    },
    "name": "luca_review_queue_media_retry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
mediaIdYes
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: required scopes (review_queue:write, luca:queue_ops), redacted data sensitivity, and the Idempotency-Key contract including server-side key generation. It does not say whether the prior transcription is overwritten (relevant given destructiveHint=true), which is the main remaining gap.

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 behavioral sentence is front-loaded and the operational metadata (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) is compact and scannable. The 'Luca operation: POST ...' line is boilerplate but cheap.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth scopes, sensitivity, idempotency and workspace targeting. An agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation correctly in one call.

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 60%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents for idempotencyKey, workspaceId and workspaceSlug. It leaves the two required UUIDs (id, mediaId) to be inferred from the title's 'draft's failed media' phrasing.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retry a failed voice-note transcription') and scopes the outcome ('so the draft can be reviewed'). The clause 'Only re-transcribes; never redrafts or sends' cleanly separates it from siblings like luca_review_queue_regenerate and luca_review_queue_drafting_retry.

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?

The failure condition (a failed media transcription) is clearly implied as the trigger, and the exclusion of redrafting/sending tells the agent when NOT to reach for it. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so the routing is inferred 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