Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

set_alert_template

Destructive

Set or clear a single alert message template on a monitor. The template is validated for allowed variables before saving. Pass an empty string for template to reset that entry to the built-in default. All other existing templates are preserved (read-modify-write). Available variables: {check_name}, {event}, {status}, {cause}, {last_ping}, {schedule}, {incident_url}, {run_url}, {branch}, {commit}, {actor}, {failing_stage}, {duration}, {latency}, {status_code}, {url}, {last_step}, {step_count}, {run_duration}, {body}, {detail}, {title}. {failing_stage} is CI-only and provider-dependent: always populated on GitLab; on GitHub only if the repository webhook also subscribes to the workflow_job event; never on Jenkins, whose Notification Plugin payload carries no step detail. {body} is the triggering ping's own text (pings.body_excerpt) — it is how a 'blocked' or 'note' event's reason reaches the alert, and a custom template is the only way to control where in the message it appears. {title} is the title of the run the alert is about — the free-text body posted with that run's /start ping. Populated for 'fail' (when the failing ping's rid resolves to a titled /start) and for 'stalled'/'overrun' under the same run-identification rule as {last_step}; empty otherwise, including for any run with no title, which is every run until a caller starts posting one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor UUID.
causeNoOptional cause for a per-cause override (e.g. 'silence', 'overrun', 'never_started', 'stalled', 'runaway'). Omit or leave empty for an event-type-wide template.
templateYesTemplate text with {variable} placeholders. Empty string resets to the built-in default.
event_typeYesEvent type: 'down', 'recovery', 'fail', 'every-run', 'success', 'started', 'blocked', 'note'.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: empty string resets to the built-in default, templates are validated before saving, and the operation is read-modify-write so all other templates are preserved. It also explains nuanced variable behavior, adding substantial context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then provides dense, valuable detail. It is longer than average, but the variable-specific notes justify the length, even if the formatting could be improved with bullets or shorter paragraphs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: validation behavior, reset semantics, preservation of existing templates, and the full variable contract. No critical usage aspect is missing.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description greatly expands parameter meaning by enumerating the allowed template variables and clarifying special cases for {failing_stage}, {body}, and {title}. This is exactly the kind of semantic detail an agent needs to construct a valid template.

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-resource pair: 'Set or clear a single alert message template on a monitor.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_alert_templates (read-only) and update_monitor (broader monitor updates), and explicitly scopes it to a single template.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to set or clear one alert template while preserving others. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_alert_templates or update_monitor, leaving some routing to inference.

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