Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

delete_destination

Destructive

Permanently delete a notification destination (channel). This cannot be undone. It also removes the destination from every monitor's routing — any event type routed ONLY to this destination stops notifying anyone, silently and with no incident to show for it. Before deleting a destination that is in use, check which monitors route to it (get_monitor returns a monitor's routes) and give those event types another destination first. To stop using a destination temporarily, prefer editing the routes with set_route and leaving the destination in place.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesDestination (channel) UUID. Get it from list_destinations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that deletion is irreversible, removes the destination from all monitor routing, and can silently stop notifications for event types routed only to it. This adds critical behavioral context that the destructiveHint annotation alone does not convey. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place: the action is front-loaded, then consequences, then preventive guidance, then the alternative for temporary use. Though it is more verbose than typical descriptions, the destructive nature and cascading side effects justify each clause without redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, irreversibility, cross-resource impact, pre-flight checks, and an alternative approach. It is fully self-contained and gives an agent everything needed 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?

The schema already documents the only parameter (id) completely with 'Destination (channel) UUID. Get it from list_destinations.' The description reinforces the 'channel' terminology but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a notification destination (channel).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_destination or test_destination by emphasizing permanent deletion and removal from routing, so an agent can tell them apart without needing the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it warns to check monitors that route to the destination beforehand, tells the agent to reassign event types first, and names the alternative for temporary deactivation (set_route). This fully satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives requirement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All LastPing toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by clear resource domains, and the long descriptions carefully separate similar reads. The main ambiguity is create_monitor's upsert behavior overlapping with update_monitor, and list_incidents vs list_open_incidents could be confused from names alone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost every tool uses verb_noun snake_case with a consistent CRUD vocabulary like create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_. Minor deviations exist: get_alert_templates is really a list operation, and discover_monitors_reconcile is an awkward verb-object-verb construction.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-six tools is a heavy surface for an agent to navigate, even for a full monitoring platform. Most tools are individually purposeful, but the count exceeds the range where an agent can quickly scan and select, and the set would be easier to handle if split across domains.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is strong: monitors, destinations, agents, status pages, API keys, routes, alert templates, incidents, run history, discovery, and Terraform export all have read and lifecycle operations. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit single-incident view and no acknowledgment/resolution action beyond notes, but core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources