Skip to main content
Glama
Codemend

Codemend MCP Server

by Codemend

codemend_list_errors

Retrieve recent production errors from your Codemend project to monitor and address software crashes. Filter by status and limit results for focused debugging.

Instructions

List recent production errors from your Codemend project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of errors to return (1–50, default 10)
statusNoFilter by status: "new" | "analyzing" | "analyzed" | "fixed" | "ignored"

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for codemend_list_errors which calls the internal API to list errors.
    async ({ limit, status }): Promise<ToolResult> => {
      try {
        const apiKey = getApiKey();
        const params = new URLSearchParams({ limit: String(limit ?? 10) });
        if (status) params.set("status", status);
    
        const res = await apiRequest<unknown>(
          "GET",
          `/api/errors?${params.toString()}`,
          apiKey
        );
    
        if (!res.ok) {
          const msg =
            typeof res.data === "object" && res.data !== null && "error" in res.data
              ? String((res.data as Record<string, unknown>).error)
              : `HTTP ${res.status}`;
          return errResult(msg);
        }
    
        return okResult(res.data);
      } catch (err) {
        return errResult(err instanceof Error ? err.message : String(err));
      }
  • src/index.ts:140-158 (registration)
    Registration of the codemend_list_errors tool with schema definitions for limit and status parameters.
    server.tool(
      "codemend_list_errors",
      "List recent production errors from your Codemend project",
      {
        limit: z
          .number()
          .int()
          .min(1)
          .max(50)
          .optional()
          .default(10)
          .describe("Number of errors to return (1–50, default 10)"),
        status: z
          .enum(["new", "analyzing", "analyzed", "fixed", "ignored"])
          .optional()
          .describe(
            'Filter by status: "new" | "analyzing" | "analyzed" | "fixed" | "ignored"'
          ),
      },
Behavior2/5

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

Adds 'recent' (temporal scope) and 'production' (environment), but lacks critical disclosure needed given zero annotations: no safety profile confirmation (read-only vs destructive), no clarification of 'recent' timeframe, no return value description, and no rate limit or auth context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, zero redundancy. However, given lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Sufficient for a simple list operation with optional filters, but misses opportunity to clarify relationship to fix-related siblings or hint at return structure (error IDs vs full objects) given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% with complete descriptions for 'limit' and 'status' parameters. Description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable when schema is fully self-documenting. Baseline 3 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?

Clear verb 'List' + specific resource 'production errors' + scope 'from your Codemend project'. Distinct from siblings which focus on fixes (apply_fix, get_fix) or aggregate health (project_health).

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List' versus sibling tools that manipulate fixes, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or workflow sequence (e.g., 'use this before applying fixes') is provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/Codemend/mcp'

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