Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

update_destination

Destructive

Update a notification destination's name and/or config in place. Only the fields you pass are changed. The destination kind cannot be changed — delete and recreate instead. Changing an email destination's address resets verification and sends a new confirmation email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew human-readable label. Omit to leave unchanged.
configNoReplacement config for the destination's existing kind — one of webhook, telegram, discord, slack, ntfy, pushover, msteams, googlechat, email. Shape must match the kind: {"url":…,"secret":…} for webhook, {"bot_token":…,"chat_id":…} for telegram, {"webhook_url":…} for slack/discord/msteams/googlechat, {"topic_url":…} for ntfy, {"token":…,"user_key":…} for pushover, {"address":…} for email. Omit to leave unchanged.
destination_idYesUUID of the destination to update. Get it from list_destinations.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive. The description adds meaningful side-effect context beyond those flags: partial-update behavior, immutability of the destination kind, and the email-address change resetting verification and sending a confirmation email. This is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct, necessary information: core action, partial-update semantics, and the immutability/side-effect constraints. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.

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?

The description, combined with the schema's detailed config shape examples, covers the operation's scope, constraints, and consequences. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. There is no critical missing context that would prevent an agent from calling this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'omit to leave unchanged' for both optional parameters plus detailed config shapes. The description reinforces this with the only-passed-fields-changed rule and adds one parameter-specific consequence: changing an email address resets verification and triggers a new confirmation email.

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?

The first sentence states the specific action and resource: 'Update a notification destination's name and/or config in place.' It distinguishes this from create/delete siblings by saying 'in place' and explicitly noting that the kind cannot be changed and should be handled by delete-and-recreate instead.

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?

The description gives clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'The destination kind cannot be changed — delete and recreate instead.' It also explains partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), which tells an agent what to include or omit when invoking the tool.

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