Get a single LastPing agent by UUID. Returns the same fields as list_agents, including its live status rollup. Use list_agents to find valid IDs, or register_agent to create one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Agent UUID (from register_agent or list_agents). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes a read-only GET operation, but the annotations mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which contradict that behavior. This sends mixed signals and could cause an agent to expect mutation or side effects. The added return-field context is useful, but the contradiction is disqualifying.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The first establishes purpose and return behavior; the second provides the workflow for finding or creating IDs. Everything earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the resource, ID source, and return shape ('same fields as list_agents, including its live status rollup'). The annotation contradiction prevents a perfect score because an agent cannot form a consistent model of side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already states that id is 'Agent UUID (from register_agent or list_agents).' The description's mention of UUID and valid-ID sources largely duplicates the schema rather than adding new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Get a single LastPing agent by UUID' — a specific verb, resource, and selection key. This clearly distinguishes it from list_agents (plural listing) and from other get_* siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly names list_agents for finding valid IDs and register_agent for creating one, giving an agent clear adjacent workflows. It does not explicitly state 'use get_agent when you already have a UUID and need one agent,' but the 'single... by UUID' phrasing conveys the intended condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.
