Skip to main content
Glama
lastping-dev

LastPing

by lastping-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

Get run details

get_run
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one run's complete timeline by monitor UUID and run ID: ordered events, assertion verdicts, terminal output, CI metadata, and OTLP spans when traced.

Instructions

Requires the read scope or higher. Gets one run's full timeline: every recorded event (start, step, log, success/fail/cancel, incident_opened) in time order, its declared assertions with pass/fail/not_evaluated verdicts against the terminal ping body, the terminal output excerpt, CI metadata when present, and its OTLP spans (spans[], parents before children, siblings by start time) when traced. A current Claude Code hook's run holds its turns' traces; a prompt after an interrupt or a blocked turn continues the open run. Also carries project, receiving_spans, in_hook_session, is_test, failure_cause and upstream_error (as in list_runs). For the detail behind a run (id + rid) found elsewhere. outcome: succeeded, failed, cancelled, blocked, running or unfinished (no end ping, no incident, not blocked, older than max_runtime_s or 24h; never pages). Caps: 200 events (events_truncated; the terminal event is kept), 2,000 spans (spans_truncated, spans_dropped). A span's gen_ai block (system, model, tokens, cost_usd) is present only on GenAI calls. untrusted_fields names the data fields LastPing did not write (job output, exporter data or user-supplied names).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor UUID.
ridYesThe run id as sent on the ping.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.17
    • changedInput schema / properties / rid / description
      Previous value: -"Run id as sent on the ping."New value: +"The run id as sent on the ping."
  2. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: scope requirement ('read scope or higher'), hard caps of 200 events / 2,000 spans with corresponding *_truncated / spans_dropped flags, the six outcome values with the 'unfinished' definition and 'never pages' note, span ordering rules, and the presence-only-on-GenAI-calls condition for gen_ai. This is rich disclosure an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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 description is front-loaded with the scope requirement and primary purpose before the detail. It is, however, a single very long run-on block where low-frequency details (untrusted_fields, span caps) are buried at the end, slightly hurting scannability, but nearly every clause carries factual weight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so thoroughly: event types, assertion verdicts, terminal output excerpt, CI metadata, OTLP spans, outcome enumeration, and the untrusted_fields caveat. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or call the tool correctly appears missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id = Monitor UUID, rid = run id) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the indirect hint that id+rid are 'found elsewhere', not new per-parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Gets one run's full timeline' with an enumerated content list. It distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to the single-run detail ('For the detail behind a run (id + rid) found elsewhere'), which separates it from list_runs. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 line 'For the detail behind a run (id + rid) found elsewhere' clearly implies the caller obtains id/rid from list_runs first, giving real usage context. However, it never explicitly excludes alternatives (get_run_history, get_trace_diagnostics) or states when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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