Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Record an objection variant choice

luca_review_queue_objection_variant

Record the objection-specialist variant chosen for a queued review draft so objection tests learn which handling approach works.

Instructions

Record which objection-specialist variant was picked for one queued draft. It is how the objection tests learn which handling works, so record the variant the coach actually chose.

Luca operation: POST /api/review-queue/{id}/objection-variant 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "luca_review_queue_objection_variant"
  }
}

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.2
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / firstApproval
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the concrete endpoint (POST /api/review-queue/{id}/objection-variant), required scopes (review_queue:write, luca:queue_ops), redacted data sensitivity, the server-generated fallback key, and the workspace override. The idempotency-key requirement is consistent with idempotentHint=false rather than contradicting it, since the key exists precisely because retries are otherwise unsafe. It does not say what side effect the write has on the queued draft itself.

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 and motivation lead, followed by a compact operational block for endpoint, scopes, idempotency, and workspace. Minor redundancy in restating the Idempotency-Key requirement twice, but nothing is padded out.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the auth/idempotency/workspace concerns a mutation like this raises are all covered. The remaining hole is parameter guidance for the label value, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong.

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%; the description mirrors the idempotencyKey and workspace override semantics already documented in the schema and only implicitly identifies 'id' as the queued draft. The single body field 'label' — the actual variant value — is never explained, and with no enum, an agent gets no help on what to put there. Baseline 3 for partially documented parameters.

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 — record which objection-specialist variant was picked for one queued draft — plus the reason ('objection tests learn which handling works'). This is narrow enough to be unmistakable against the queue-manipulation siblings like approve/reject/regenerate.

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?

It implies the usage context (after a coach has chosen a variant for a queued draft) and stresses recording the variant actually chosen, but gives no explicit when-not conditions and names no alternative tool for adjacent actions such as reading the playbook or explain output.

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