selfhosted-sentry-mcp

bulk_update_issues

DestructiveIdempotent

Update Sentry issues in one project by issue IDs or a search query: resolve, ignore, unresolve, assign, or mark seen. Prevents accidental project-wide changes.

Instructions

Bulk update issues in one project (resolve, ignore, unresolve, assign, mark seen). Scope: exactly one of issue_ids or query is required. issue_ids changes only those issues; query changes EVERY issue in the project that matches the Sentry search (up to 1000 per call). A call with neither is refused, because Sentry would otherwise change every unresolved issue in the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Sentry search query selecting the issues to change (e.g., "is:unresolved environment:staging"). Every matching issue in the project is changed. Use either query or issue_ids.
`status`	No	New status.
`has_seen`	No	Mark issues as seen.
`issue_ids`	No	Numeric issue IDs to change (1-100). Only these issues are changed. Use either issue_ids or query.
`assigned_to`	No	Team or user to assign to.
`project_slug`	Yes	Project slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / issue_ids

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Numeric issue IDs to change (1-100). Only these issues are changed. Use either issue_ids or query.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"Sentry search query to select issues (e.g., \"is:unresolved environment:staging\")."New value: +"Sentry search query selecting the issues to change (e.g., \"is:unresolved environment:staging\"). Every matching issue in the project is changed. Use either query or issue_ids."

First observedv1.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds the crucial blast-radius detail the annotations cannot convey: query changes EVERY matching issue in the project (up to 1000 per call) while issue_ids touches only the listed issues. This is exactly the kind of safety context that prevents an agent from accidentally mass-mutating a project.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then the critical selection rule and its rationale. No filler, and every clause carries decision-relevant 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?

Covers purpose, scope, mutual exclusivity, and blast radius, which is strong for a 6-parameter destructive tool. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what the call returns (counts, affected IDs, or an empty acknowledgement), which an agent might need to confirm success.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the semantic difference between issue_ids (only those issues) and query (all matching issues), plus the 1000-per-call cap for query that the schema does not state. It does not elaborate on status/enum or assigned_to beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Bulk update issues in one project") and enumerates the exact operations available (resolve, ignore, unresolve, assign, mark seen). The word "bulk" plus the stated single-project scope clearly distinguishes it from the singular update_sentry_issue_status sibling without needing to name it.

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?

Explicitly defines the selection constraint: exactly one of issue_ids or query is required, and a call with neither is refused. It also explains why (Sentry would otherwise change every unresolved issue), which tells the agent when the tool will and will not execute.

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

bulk_update_issues

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools