Skip to main content
Glama
tp322d

LastPing

by tp322d
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

list_monitors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all monitors in the authenticated LastPing project with ID, name, status, and ping URL; filter by a single tag to target specific jobs or agent runs.

Instructions

Requires an API key with the read scope or higher. List all monitors in the authenticated LastPing project. Returns id, name, slug, status, ping_url for each. Use the tag param to filter by a single tag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoOptional tag to filter by, e.g. 'agent:claude'. Returns only monitors that have this tag.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context: it requires 'read scope or higher' and operates within the authenticated project. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are minor for a simple read-only list.

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, no filler, and the key operational requirement (read scope) is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either scope, return shape, or filtering behavior.

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?

For a read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the API key scope, project context, returned fields, and filter behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 input schema fully documents the single optional tag parameter with an example, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds only the phrase 'filter by a single tag,' which is a minor clarification rather than substantial new 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List all monitors in the authenticated LastPing project' and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_monitor, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some context—authentication scope and optional tag filtering—but never states when to prefer this tool over get_monitor or other monitor-related siblings. The usage is implied by the listing purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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