Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

test_destination

Destructive

Send something through a destination right now, to move it from 'created' to 'known to work'. By default it delivers a synthetic 'LastPing test alert' immediately — use that after create_destination to confirm the credentials are right. For an EMAIL destination that is still unverified, a test alert is not what you need: an unverified email cannot be attached to a route at all, and no amount of testing changes that. Pass resend_verification=true instead to re-send the confirmation link a human must click. That is the tool to reach for when create_destination reported UNVERIFIED and the confirmation email never arrived or has expired.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesDestination (channel) UUID. Get it from list_destinations or create_destination.
resend_verificationNoSet true to re-send the email confirmation link INSTEAD of a test alert. Email destinations only — any other kind returns 400. Safe to repeat, and idempotent: on an already-verified destination it reports verified and sends nothing rather than mailing the user again.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the default action sends a synthetic 'LastPing test alert' immediately, that unverified email destinations cannot be attached to routes no matter how much they are tested, and that the resend path sends a confirmation link requiring human action. These are concrete behavioral consequences that the bare annotations do not convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The main action is front-loaded and each sentence contributes to choosing the correct mode. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, with some explanatory repetition around unverified email destinations, but the length is justified by the two-mode behavior.

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 tool with no output schema, it still gives enough context: default sends a test alert to confirm credentials, resend sends a human-clickable verification link, and the already-verified behavior is covered in the parameter schema. Combined with detailed parameter descriptions and annotations, an agent can select and invoke the correct mode confidently.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical context by tying resend_verification=true to the UNVERIFIED/expired-confirmation case and explaining why testing is insufficient for unverified email destinations, though it does not add new syntax-level parameter information.

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?

States a specific action ('Send something through a destination right now') and a clear outcome ('move it from created to known to work'). It also distinguishes the two modes: default test alert versus resend_verification. This makes it clearly distinct from create_destination and other sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use the default behavior after create_destination to confirm credentials are correct. It also gives a precise when-not condition: for an unverified email destination, a test alert is not useful, and resend_verification=true should be used instead when the confirmation email never arrived or expired.

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