Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

snooze_monitor

Destructive

Set or clear a maintenance window on a monitor. During the window the monitor will not alert. Provide exactly one of: duration (e.g. '1h', '24h'), until (RFC 3339 timestamp), or clear=true to remove the window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor UUID.
clearNoSet true to remove the active maintenance window.
untilNoRFC 3339 end timestamp. Use this OR duration OR clear.
durationNoGo duration string, e.g. '1h' or '24h'. Use this OR until OR clear.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, destructive mutation, and the description aligns with those by adding the alert-suppression behavior, the notion of a temporary window, and the remove semantics of clear=true. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful behavioral detail beyond the flags.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose and effect, then state the parameter constraint. There is no filler or repetition of schema metadata; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a mutating tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description conveys what the tool does, what parameters to choose, and the alert-suppression side effect. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing the pause_monitor/resume_monitor siblings, but the maintenance-window framing and duration/until/clear options make the intended use reasonably unambiguous.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by stating exactly one of duration/until/clear must be supplied and by giving concrete duration examples ('1h', '24h') and the RFC 3339 format for until. This reduces ambiguity in parameter selection beyond the schema alone.

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 description names a specific action ('Set or clear a maintenance window') and a specific resource ('a monitor'), and explains the practical effect ('During the window the monitor will not alert'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling pause_monitor/resume_monitor tools, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 description gives concrete invocation context: set a maintenance window to suppress alerts, or clear it with clear=true. It also states the mutual-exclusion rule ('Provide exactly one of: duration, until, or clear=true'), which is clear usage guidance, but it does not name when-not-to-use or alternatives such as pause_monitor.

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