Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Reject a queued draft

luca_review_queue_reject
Destructive

Reject a pending review-queue draft to prevent sending and stop any related booking-recovery cadence.

Instructions

Reject a pending review-queue draft so it never sends. Stops any related booking-recovery cadence and emits review.rejected.

Luca operation: POST /api/review-queue/{id}/reject 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>"
    },
    "name": "luca_review_queue_reject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyNo
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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / body
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "note": {
+      "maxLength": 280,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reasonCode": {
+      "enum": [
+        "wrong_facts",
+        "wrong_tone",
+        "too_long",
+        "too_pushy",
+        "should_not_reply",
+        "other"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. 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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: it discloses that a related booking-recovery cadence is stopped and that a review.rejected event is emitted. It also names the required scopes and flags redacted data sensitivity, which an agent cannot derive from the schema.

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 consequence is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the endpoint/scopes block. The metadata lines are somewhat boilerplate but each carries operational value; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

For a destructive single-record mutation, the definition covers side effects, event emission, required scopes, idempotency behavior, and workspace override. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here, and little else is required to call it 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?

With 60% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does add real meaning for idempotencyKey (server generates one if omitted) and for the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override semantics. It says nothing about the nested body fields (note, reasonCode), which remain documented only by the schema.

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 ("Reject a pending review-queue draft") plus the outcome ("so it never sends"), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling luca_review_queue_bulk_reject, so an agent must infer that this one acts on a single id.

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 implied by the word "pending" and the note that the draft "never sends," giving a reasonable sense of when to call it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer bulk_reject, when to use restore instead, or what happens if the draft is no longer pending.

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