Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

create_status_page

Destructive

Create a status page — a single page showing the current status and recent history of a chosen set of monitors. Reach for this when the health of a monitor needs to be visible to someone who cannot log in to the project. Pages are PRIVATE unless you ask for otherwise; read the visibility parameter before making one public.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoOptional URL slug, which is what appears in the public link (/status/<slug>). Must match ^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{1,48}[a-z0-9]$ (3-50 chars, lowercase alphanumeric and hyphens, starting and ending alphanumeric). Slugs are GLOBALLY unique across all projects, not just yours, so a desirable one may be taken — that returns 409. OMIT IT unless the user asked for a specific URL: a random unguessable slug is then generated, which is also the safer default for a public page.
titleYesHuman-readable page title, e.g. 'Acme API Status'. Shown at the top of the page, and to anyone the page is shared with.
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.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial behavioral context: pages are private by default, public pages are served at unauthenticated URLs, monitor names can leak internal information, and the free tier allows only one public page. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand real-world consequences.

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, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, and a critical privacy warning. The most important guidance is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of schema details.

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 create operation with privacy implications, the description covers the key decision points: default visibility, the need to read the visibility parameter, and when to omit the slug for safety. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the tool description and rich parameter schema provide enough context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool-level description adds a meaningful pointer—'read the visibility parameter before making one public'—which reinforces the most safety-critical parameter beyond what the schema states. Other parameters are already richly documented in the schema.

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 ('Create a status page') and immediately defines what a status page is: a page showing current status and recent history of chosen monitors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_status_page, delete_status_page, or list_status_pages.

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 a concrete trigger condition: use this when monitor health must be visible to someone who cannot log in to the project. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the use case is unambiguous and the privacy warning adds important operational context.

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

All LastPing toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by clear resource domains, and the long descriptions carefully separate similar reads. The main ambiguity is create_monitor's upsert behavior overlapping with update_monitor, and list_incidents vs list_open_incidents could be confused from names alone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost every tool uses verb_noun snake_case with a consistent CRUD vocabulary like create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_. Minor deviations exist: get_alert_templates is really a list operation, and discover_monitors_reconcile is an awkward verb-object-verb construction.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-six tools is a heavy surface for an agent to navigate, even for a full monitoring platform. Most tools are individually purposeful, but the count exceeds the range where an agent can quickly scan and select, and the set would be easier to handle if split across domains.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is strong: monitors, destinations, agents, status pages, API keys, routes, alert templates, incidents, run history, discovery, and Terraform export all have read and lifecycle operations. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit single-incident view and no acknowledgment/resolution action beyond notes, but core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources