selfhosted-sentry-mcp

create_sentry_issue_comment

Add a comment to a Sentry issue using its issue ID and comment text, then return the new comment ID.

Instructions

Add a comment to a Sentry issue. Returns the new comment id.

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "comment_text": "<comment_text>"
    },
    "name": "create_sentry_issue_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue_id`	Yes	Numeric issue ID or short ID (e.g. PROJ-1A2)
`comment_text`	Yes	Comment text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / issue_id / description
```
Previous value: -"Issue ID."New value: +"Numeric issue ID or short ID (e.g. PROJ-1A2)"
```
First observedv1.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety picture is covered. The description usefully discloses the return value ('Returns the new comment id') in the absence of an output schema, but adds nothing about permissions or side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return value. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description plus the return-value note is nearly sufficient. It could be complete with a brief note on preconditions or the failure mode when the issue does not exist.

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 both parameters (issue_id with short-ID example, comment_text) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (add) and resource (comment on a Sentry issue), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. No sibling tool performs commenting, so the purpose is unambiguous in context.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It does not mention raw_sentry_api as a fallback or note any preconditions (e.g. issue must exist) for commenting.

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