Skip to main content
Glama
tp322d

LastPing

by tp322d
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

update_status_page

DestructiveIdempotent

Modify a status page's title, slug, visibility, or monitors. Only the fields you pass change; omitted settings remain intact.

Instructions

Requires an API key with the write scope or higher. 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.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses major behavioral traits: it reads the page first and merges, omitted arguments leave values unchanged, passing check_ids replaces the entire monitor set, slug changes break existing links, and public visibility publishes monitor names. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: authentication, core capability, merge semantics, monitor-set replacement, and the most dangerous side effect (slug changes). The critical warnings are front-loaded, and the wording is efficient with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation essentials thoroughly: auth requirements, side effects, and error-relevant constraints. The only gap is that it does not state what a successful call returns (e.g., updated page object vs. simple success), which an agent might need to verify the result.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema descriptions are already rich (100% coverage), the tool description adds crucial cross-parameter semantics: the replace-not-append behavior of check_ids, the danger of slug changes, the merge behavior for omitted arguments, and the privacy implications of visibility. This meaningfully amplifies what an agent can infer from the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('a status page'), and enumerates exactly which aspects can be changed: title, slug, visibility, and the set of monitors. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_monitor, create_status_page, and delete_status_page.

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 context: it is the tool for changing an existing status page, requires write-scoped API credentials, and explains the merge behavior that differentiates it from a blank overwrite. It does not explicitly call out when to prefer create_status_page or delete_status_page, but the update semantics are unmistakable.

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