DeployAngel

get_exception

Retrieve sanitized exception details and a representative stack trace by fingerprint to diagnose why a production deploy failed or a job stopped running.

Instructions

Sanitized details and a representative stack trace (application frames, or library frames when there are none) for an exception fingerprint.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>"
    },
    "name": "get_exception"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fingerprint`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: results are sanitized, and frame selection falls back from application frames to library frames when none exist. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown or stale fingerprint, whether the trace is truncated, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the returned payload and closed by a parenthetical that earns its place by defining the frame-selection rule. Nothing is redundant.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value (details plus a representative trace), which is the right move for a one-parameter read tool. It is still incomplete on error/empty-result behavior and on how the fingerprint is sourced, both of which an agent needs before calling.

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 0% for the single required parameter, but the description supplies its meaning — the fingerprint identifies which exception's details are returned. It does not explain fingerprint format or where to obtain one, which is the main remaining gap.

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 names a specific resource — sanitized details plus a representative stack trace for an exception fingerprint — so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_late_regressions or get_verification. The verb is implicit ('details ... for an exception fingerprint') rather than stated as 'retrieve', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite (such as obtaining a fingerprint from a regression listing), and no routing to or away from any of the five sibling tools. The agent must infer the call context entirely.

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

Deploy Server