Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

export_terraform

Destructive

Export existing LastPing monitors, destinations, routes, alert templates and status pages as Terraform HCL, including import blocks so they are adopted rather than recreated. Secrets are NOT exported — the output references Terraform variables you must fill in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoOptional tag to filter monitors by, e.g. 'agent:claude'. Only monitors carrying this tag (and their routes/templates) are exported.
includeNoOptional comma-separated subset of monitors,destinations,routes,templates,status_pages. Omit to export everything.
monitor_slugNoOptional slug to export a single monitor by. Combines with tag if both are given.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says resources are 'adopted rather than recreated,' implying a non-destructive operation, while annotations set destructiveHint=true. This is an annotation contradiction, so the description cannot receive credit for transparency despite its useful secrets caveat.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose, adoption behavior, and the important secrets caveat all front-loaded. The structure is tight and scannable.

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?

The description covers resource scope, output format, import/adoption behavior, and secret handling, which is largely complete for an export tool without an output schema. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that the tool call itself is non-destructive, especially given the misleading annotation, and by clarifying whether HCL is returned inline or written to a file.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters already carry meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so 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 names a specific verb ('Export'), a precise set of LastPing resources, and the output format (Terraform HCL). It also clarifies the import-block behavior so the tool is clearly distinct from create/get/list siblings.

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 intended use is clear: export existing resources so they are adopted rather than recreated. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong.

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