Skip to main content
Glama
lastping-dev

LastPing

by lastping-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

Get ping instructions

get_ping_instructions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns ping URLs, copy-paste snippets, and reporting options to wire a new monitor, including manual, hook, and run-wrapper setup instructions.

Instructions

Requires the read scope or higher. Returns what a monitor needs in order to report: its ping URLs, copy-paste snippets (curl_success, curl_start, curl_fail, curl_step, run_example) and three reporting mechanisms, for wiring up a new monitor. reporting_options holds the rule for choosing between them: how_to is the manual protocol and works in any agent with no prerequisite (with expect_every_s, a lapse opens an incident); hook_install is a one-time install that automates the same protocol through hooks and alone sends every state, blocked and note included; it is returned only when tool is set (claude-code, codex or antigravity), otherwise hook_install_note says so; run_wrapper puts lastping run before a launched command (cron job, CI step, script) and reports start, success, fail and cancel. Also returned: failure_inbox_how_to, expectations_how_to (declare_run_expectations), tracing_how_to (OpenTelemetry, detailed by get_trace_setup), otel_env_lines, export lines whose key placeholder stands for the person's tracing key, and docs_url. An exporter that cannot set headers can POST to <ping_url>/v1/traces, which needs no Authorization header.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor UUID (from create_monitor or list_monitors).
toolNoWhich tool's install `hook_install` carries: claude-code, codex or antigravity. `hook_install` is returned only when this is set. Everything else in the result is the same.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.17
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool / description
      Previous value: -"Which tool's install `hook_install` carries: claude-code (the default), codex or antigravity. Everything else in the result is the same."New value: +"Which tool's install `hook_install` carries: claude-code, codex or antigravity. `hook_install` is returned only when this is set. Everything else in the result is the same."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.16
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool / description
      Previous value: -"Which tool's install `hook_install` carries: claude-code (the default) or codex. Everything else in the result is the same."New value: +"Which tool's install `hook_install` carries: claude-code (the default), codex or antigravity. Everything else in the result is the same."
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "claude-code",
-  "codex"
-]New value: +[
+  "claude-code",
+  "codex",
+  "antigravity"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.9
    • addedInput schema / properties / tool
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which tool's install `hook_install` carries: claude-code (the default) or codex. Everything else in the result is the same.",
+  "enum": [
+    "claude-code",
+    "codex"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: the read-scope auth requirement, the conditional return of hook_install (only when `tool` is set, otherwise hook_install_note), the hook_install_note fallback, and the headerless /v1/traces POST endpoint. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The auth requirement is front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of nested parentheticals and semicolon clauses that is hard to parse in one pass. Most content is informative, but the packaging costs readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates ping URLs, the snippet names, the three reporting mechanisms, and auxiliary fields (failure_inbox_how_to, expectations_how_to, tracing_how_to, otel_env_lines, docs_url). An agent can act on this without further context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both params (including the `tool` enum) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's conditional `tool` behavior ('hook_install is returned only when this is set') rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 states a specific resource: the reporting instructions a monitor needs (ping URLs, snippets, and three reporting mechanisms) and ties it to wiring up a new monitor. It is clearly distinct from read-side siblings like get_monitor or list_monitors, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives clear context ('for wiring up a new monitor') and routes the agent onward by naming get_trace_setup for tracing detail and declare_run_expectations for expectations. It does not state when NOT to call it or name a competing alternative for basic monitor inspection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools