Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

delete_agent

Destructive

Permanently delete a LastPing agent from the registry by UUID. THIS DOES NOT DELETE ITS MONITORS: the agent_id foreign key on a monitor is ON DELETE SET NULL, so every monitor this agent owned survives the delete with its ping history and incidents completely intact — it just becomes unowned (agent_id cleared to null) and keeps running on its existing schedule, no longer attributed to any agent. list_monitors/get_monitor will still show it afterwards. To reattach a survivor, call update_monitor with agent_id set to a different agent's id or slug. To also remove a monitor, call delete_monitor on it separately — deleting the agent alone never does that. This action on the agent row itself cannot be undone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAgent UUID (from register_agent or list_agents).

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?

Annotations already flag destructive intent, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavioral detail: ON DELETE SET NULL, monitors survive unowned, continue running, remain visible in list_monitors/get_monitor, can be reattached, and the agent-row deletion is irreversible. This goes far beyond what the annotations provide.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: action, critical non-side-effect, survival behavior, reattachment option, separate deletion path, and irreversibility. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details consequences without padding.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description completely covers the operational context: what gets deleted, what survives, what happens to those survivors, how to perform related operations, and that the action cannot be undone. Nothing needed for correct invocation or expectation-setting 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 already provides 100% coverage of the sole parameter id with the source hint "from register_agent or list_agents." The description's phrase "by UUID" adds no meaningful information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 first sentence names the exact action ("Permanently delete"), the resource ("LastPing agent"), and the scope ("from the registry by UUID"). It immediately distinguishes itself from delete_monitor by explicitly stating that monitors are NOT deleted.

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 provides explicit routing guidance: use delete_monitor separately to remove monitors, and use update_monitor with agent_id to reattach a surviving monitor. It clearly states that deleting the agent alone never removes monitors, so an agent knows exactly when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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