Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

update_agent

Destructive

Update an existing LastPing agent's name/description by UUID using merge-patch semantics: only the fields you supply are changed, and any field you omit keeps its current stored value. slug is derived from name at creation and is immutable — this can rename the agent's display name, but never its slug, so anything that already references it by slug (including monitors attached via agent_id) keeps working.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAgent UUID (from register_agent or list_agents).
nameYesHuman-readable agent name, e.g. 'Deploy Bot'.
descriptionNoFree-text description of what this agent does. Omit to leave the agent's current description unchanged — THIS IS THE DEFAULT AND SAFE CHOICE for a name-only rename. Pass an explicit empty string to clear an existing description back to none.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation/destructive intent, but the description adds crucial behavior: only supplied fields change, omitted fields persist, slug is immutable, references continue to work, and an explicit empty string clears the description. This goes well beyond structured hints and is not contradicted by destructiveHint since the operation does mutate the agent.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the critical slug-immutability caveat follows directly. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description includes all necessary calling semantics: required fields, optional field behavior, and side effects on slug-based references. An agent can invoke it correctly without further information.

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 covers all 3 parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining merge-patch semantics for the description parameter, including the safe default of omission and explicit empty-string clearing. This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Update'), resource ('existing LastPing agent'), target fields ('name/description'), and mechanism ('by UUID', 'merge-patch semantics'). It clearly differentiates from sibling update_* tools by naming the agent resource.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: updating an existing agent, with a safe default for name-only renames. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the slug-immutability explanation implicitly argues against a delete-and-recreate approach. No explicit exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.

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