Skip to main content
Glama

get_ping_instructions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get everything needed to make a monitor report: the ping URL, copy-paste check-in snippets, and reporting mechanisms. Use it right after creating a monitor to start monitoring.

Instructions

Requires an API key with the read scope or higher. Get everything needed to make a monitor actually report: the ping URL, copy-paste check-in snippets, and the three MECHANISMS for reporting, returned together. Call this right after create_monitor. CHOOSE BY WHAT THE MONITORED THING IS — read reporting_options first and pick by that, rather than defaulting to the raw curl list: how_to — the manual protocol — is the UNIVERSAL path: it works in any agent, any language, any tool, with no prerequisite, so it is the default choice for any agent this applies to. Pair it with expect_every_s (the silence floor, set via update_monitor) so an agent that quietly stops reporting opens a detected incident instead of leaving its monitor reading healthy. If you ARE Claude Code specifically, hook_install is available as an OPTIONAL SHORTCUT, not a better tier: a one-time install that binds reporting to Claude Code's own hooks (UserPromptSubmit, Stop, StopFailure), automating how_to's exact same protocol so reporting becomes a property of your event loop instead of something you must remember — and it is the only mechanism that can send every state this product models, including blocked and note. Re-running hook_install replaces an older ~/.claude/lastping-report.sh (keeping a .bak), which is how an existing install is upgraded. hook_install is Claude Code specific: if you are a DIFFERENT AI agent — even one with its own hook or event system, Cursor, Windsurf, Codex, a custom framework — do NOT translate its steps into your own hooks; the event semantics differ and a translated install can pass its own verification while never reporting, so use how_to instead. If what you are monitoring is launched as a command instead — a cron job, a CI step, a script, or an agent started from a shell — use run_wrapper: wrap the command with lastping run and a separate process reports for you, so nothing has to be remembered; the tradeoff is that it reports the process's own lifecycle (start, success, fail, cancel) and has no way to send blocked or note. Whichever you choose, the underlying protocol is the same: the success ping at the END of the work, the fail URL if it failed, the start ping first for long or possibly-hung runs (this enables overrun / never-finished detection), and a step (curl_step) as each stage completes so a run that wedges mid-way is caught by name rather than only when its whole budget expires. Also read expectations_how_to: before you start work, use declare_run_expectations to say how THIS run should be judged when it closes — a one-time, unchangeable commitment that replaces the run grading itself. And discovery_how_to, which is about the OTHER jobs on this host or in this repo: how to find the scheduled work nobody is watching yet and propose it, rather than monitoring only the one thing you were asked about. To send OpenTelemetry traces, read tracing_how_to, call get_trace_setup with the tool that sends the telemetry and carry its steps out yourself; the tracing key comes from create_ingest_key, never from your own API key. otel_env_lines is the minimal form: the export lines (OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_TRACES_ENDPOINT, OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_PROTOCOL, OTEL_RESOURCE_ATTRIBUTES, OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_HEADERS) to set in the child process's environment so its spans arrive on this monitor; fill in the tracing key placeholder yourself, it is not resolved server-side. An exporter that cannot set headers can instead POST straight to <ping_url>/v1/traces: the monitor-URL form needs no Authorization header at all, since the monitor id in the URL is itself the capability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor UUID (from create_monitor or list_monitors).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds compatible details: API key read-scope requirement, the re-run behavior of hook_install (replaces ~/.claude/lastping-report.sh keeping a .bak), how the protocol works, and the pointer that tracing keys come from create_ingest_key rather than the caller's API key. Nothing contradicts annotations.

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 content is well organized but extremely long for a one-parameter read tool, mixing selection guidance, protocol mechanics, tracing setup, and discovery advice in a single unbroken text block. It earns its place topically, but an agent must parse a dense wall of text to extract the call decision; trimmer sibling-specific guidance would be more concise.

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 burden of telling the agent what will be returned and how to act: it names the three reporting mechanisms, the universal fallback, the Claude Code shortcut, the command wrapper, the success/fail/start/step protocol, and pointers to expectations, discovery, and tracing flows. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and follow up is 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?

The single parameter id is already documented in the schema as 'Monitor UUID (from create_monitor or list_monitors)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only a slight contextual cue by saying to call the tool right after create_monitor; it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get everything needed to make a monitor actually report: the ping URL, copy-paste check-in snippets, and the three MECHANISMS for reporting, returned together.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools, which retrieve resources rather than report-instructions. The name is reinforced without being merely restated.

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 is unusually explicit about selection: call it 'right after create_monitor', choose by the monitored thing by reading reporting_options, use how_to as universal default, hook_install only for Claude Code, and run_wrapper for command-launched processes. It also tells agents when not to translate hook_install into other hook systems, which is valuable exclusion guidance.

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