Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

update_status_page

Destructive

Update a status page's title, slug, visibility, or the set of monitors on it. Only the arguments you pass are changed; anything you omit keeps its current value (this tool reads the page first and merges, so omitting check_ids can never blank the page). check_ids, when you DO pass it, REPLACES the whole monitor set — to add one monitor, pass the existing ids plus the new one, which list_status_pages gives you. Changing the slug changes the public URL and BREAKS any link already shared.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesStatus page UUID, from list_status_pages.
slugNoNew URL slug. Omit to leave unchanged — which is almost always right, because changing it breaks every link already handed out. Same format rules and same global uniqueness as on create; a taken slug returns 409.
titleNoNew page title. Omit to leave unchanged.
check_idsNoComma-separated monitor UUIDs to show on the page, in no particular order. Get them from list_monitors. Every id must belong to this project — an unknown or cross-project id returns 400 and nothing is saved. An empty value is legal and produces a page with no monitors on it. REPLACES the page's whole monitor set. Omit to leave the current set alone.
visibilityNo'private' (default) or 'public'. 'public' means the page is served at a guessable-free but UNAUTHENTICATED URL: anyone with the link sees the title, the name of every monitor on it, and its up/down history. Monitor names are frequently internal ('billing-reconciler', 'acme-corp-nightly-sync'), so treat this as publishing them. Choose 'private' unless the user has actually asked for a page other people can see. The free tier allows exactly ONE public page per project; a second returns 403. Omit to leave unchanged. Switching a page from private to public publishes every monitor name already on it.

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the partial-update merge behavior, that omitting check_ids will never blank the page, that passing check_ids replaces the entire monitor set, that slug changes break existing links, and that public visibility publishes monitor names. These are critical behavioral traits that the annotations alone do not convey, and there is no contradiction with destructiveHint=true.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the most important safety caveats, and every sentence carries warning or behavior information. It avoids repeating obvious schema facts and presents the key destructive risks early.

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?

Given the complexity of this destructive partial-update tool and the rich input schema, the description covers the essential operational hazards: merge semantics, full replacement of monitor sets, slug breakage, and public-visibility implications. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to document return values because the main risks and usage constraints are already thoroughly addressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra operational meaning beyond the schema: it explains the merge-on-update model, tells users to pass existing ids plus the new monitor when adding one, and clarifies that readonly fields are untouched. This is genuinely useful but not exhaustive for every parameter, which keeps it at a 4.

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 description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a status page') and enumerates the exact mutable fields: title, slug, visibility, and monitor set. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_status_page and delete_status_page by its scope and effects.

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 clear contextual guidance on when certain arguments are appropriate, such as 'changing the slug ... is almost always right' to leave unchanged and 'Choose private unless the user has actually asked for a page other people can see.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when to create or delete a status page, so it falls just short of a 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