Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SetLuca

SetLuca

Official
by setluca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Replay a batch of webhook events

luca_webhooks_events_bulk_replay
Destructive

Bulk replay webhook events by type and time range. Re-triggers downstream automations at scale.

Instructions

Bulk replay webhook events by type and time range. Re-triggers downstream automations at scale.

Luca operation: POST /api/webhook-subscriptions/events/replay Required scopes: webhooks:write Required OAuth scope: luca:full; data sensitivity: redacted Requires Idempotency-Key. Provide idempotencyKey for safe retries, or the server will generate one. Destructive: has a real-world side effect. You must pass confirm: true; the call is rejected without it. 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_webhooks_events_bulk_replay"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
confirmNoThis tool has a real-world side effect: it messages real leads, books, moves, or cancels a call, changes a lead's consent, imports leads, writes to a connected calendar or CRM, sends workspace events to an outside URL, or re-triggers downstream automations. Pass confirm: true to proceed; the call is rejected without it.
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 changedv0.4.1
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "body"
-]
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: required scopes (webhooks:write, luca:full), the mandatory confirm:true gate with rejection on omission, the Idempotency-Key requirement and server-side generation fallback, and the workspace override mechanism. It also states the real-world consequence, that downstream automations get re-fired.

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, followed by compact operational lines (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, confirm, workspace). The scope/sensitivity line is slightly jargon-heavy but every line carries actionable information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a destructive, non-idempotent batch operation the description covers safety gating, retry semantics, and workspace scoping. Minor gaps: how already-delivered events are treated and whether the 100-item limit caps the batch.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds operational meaning for confirm (rejected without it), idempotencyKey (safe retries, server generates if omitted), and workspaceId/workspaceSlug (override the environment default). It adds nothing about from/to/eventTypes/limit beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Bulk replay webhook events by type and time range,' which separates it from a single-event replay. It stops short of explicitly naming luca_webhooks_events_replay or luca_webhooks_deliveries_replay, so the 'bulk' distinction relies on the agent inferring it from the name.

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?

'Re-triggers downstream automations at scale' implies the batch/multi-event use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over luca_webhooks_events_replay (single) or luca_webhooks_deliveries_replay, nor any prerequisites beyond scopes. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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