Get all custom alert message templates for a LastPing monitor. Returns a map of event-type (or event-type/cause) keys to template strings. Keys: 'down', 'recovery', 'fail', 'every-run', 'success', 'started', 'blocked', 'note', or 'event_type/cause' (e.g. 'down/silence'). An empty result means all alerts use the built-in plain-language defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor UUID. |
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 presents a read-only lookup ('Get all... returns a map'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: an agent cannot tell whether calling this tool mutates or destroys state. The description also provides no additional behavioral context to resolve this.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return shape, then the empty-result meaning. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.
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 simple single-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return type, the key format, and the empty-result case, and there is no output schema to duplicate. The only hole is the unresolved contradiction with the destructive/read-only annotations, which prevents it from being fully trustworthy.
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%: the only parameter, id, is documented as 'Monitor UUID.' The description adds only the phrase 'for a LastPing monitor,' which does not provide new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all custom alert message templates for a LastPing monitor') and goes on to define the returned map. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the sibling set_alert_template.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever you need the custom templates for a monitor. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as set_alert_template or state when not to use it, so there is clear context but no exclusions.
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.
