Glitchtip MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources: get_issue, get_organization, and get_project retrieve single items, while list_events, list_issues, list_projects, and list_teams retrieve collections. No ambiguity exists between tools as each combines a clear action (get/list) with a specific resource type.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_issue, get_organization, get_project, list_events, list_issues, list_projects, list_teams. The naming is perfectly predictable and readable throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for monitoring and managing a Glitchtip error-tracking system. Each tool earns its place by covering essential resources (issues, organizations, projects, events, teams) without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong read/list coverage for core Glitchtip entities, enabling monitoring workflows. However, it lacks write operations (e.g., create/update/delete for issues, projects, or teams) and advanced actions like resolving issues, which are typical in error-tracking systems, creating minor gaps that agents might need to work around.
Average 3.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get organization details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as specifying the type of details (e.g., 'Get metadata and settings for the organization').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, how the data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like permissions. For a tool that might return critical organizational info, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids misleading param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get organization details' states the action (get) and resource (organization details), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'details' specifically includes and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_issue or get_project, which follow a similar 'get [resource]' pattern. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like list_teams or list_projects that might retrieve related data, there's no indication of whether this tool is for high-level organization metadata, configuration, or other purposes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what happens with invalid project slugs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about authentication requirements, error conditions, return format, and differentiation from sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'project_slug' adequately. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or where to find project slugs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.
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 action ('Get details') and target resource ('a specific Glitchtip project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_projects' or explain what distinguishes 'getting details' from 'listing' projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'get_issue'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all') but doesn't describe traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it returns a complete list or requires filtering). This is a significant gap for a list operation with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how results are returned), which is important for a list operation. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.
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 ('List') and resource ('all Glitchtip projects in the organization'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_issues', which might also retrieve project-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' (for a single project) or 'list_issues' (which might include project context). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, sorted, filtered, or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, or permissions that would help an agent use it correctly in context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
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 ('List') and resource ('all teams in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization' or 'list_projects', which might also return team-related information in some contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_organization' (which might include team data) or 'list_projects' (which could be related). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by specifying the required scope ('event:read'), which is useful for authentication needs. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, or what happens when no issues are found, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose and key requirement in a single sentence. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and authentication, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the action, scope, and authentication need, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or how results are ordered. This leaves some gaps for an agent to understand full context.
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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters ('limit' and 'project_slug') adequately. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'project_slug' relates to the organization or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), and specifies the scope ('in the organization or a specific project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_issue' (singular retrieval) and 'list_events' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_projects' or 'list_teams'.
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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the required scope ('requires event:read scope'), which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue' (for single issues) or 'list_projects' (for listing projects instead of issues), and does not specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required 'event:read scope' for authentication, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure). The description adds some value but is incomplete for behavioral transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential context (scope requirement). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with authentication), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and scope requirement but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits like pagination. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('limit' and 'project_slug'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for 'project_slug' or constraints on 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('List') and resource ('events'), specifying it's for a specific project. It distinguishes from potential siblings like 'list_issues' or 'list_projects' by focusing on events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical siblings like 'get_event' or 'search_events' that might exist elsewhere.
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 usage context by mentioning 'for a specific project' and the required 'event:read scope', which suggests when authentication is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_issues' or 'get_project', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope ('event:read scope'), which is useful context for authentication. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the issue_id is invalid, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential context (scope requirement). There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence earns its place by providing necessary information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, scope requirement, and details included. However, it lacks information on output format or error cases, which would be helpful for full completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'issue_id' well-documented in the schema as 'The ID of the issue to retrieve'. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 description clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete details of a specific Glitchtip issue'), including what details are included ('latest event and comments'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_issues (which lists multiple issues) and list_events (which lists events generally).
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get complete details of a specific Glitchtip issue') and includes a prerequisite ('requires event:read scope'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like list_issues for listing multiple issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![glitchtip-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CleverMobi/glitchtip-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CleverMobi/glitchtip-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![glitchtip-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CleverMobi/glitchtip-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CleverMobi/glitchtip-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CleverMobi/glitchtip-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server