selfhosted-sentry-mcp

get_release_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed release information, including health stats, commits, and authors, for a specific version or commit SHA in self-hosted Sentry.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a release including health stats, commits, and authors.

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": {
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "get_release_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full`	No	Include full commit and author data (default: false).
`version`	Yes	Release version (e.g., "1.2.3" or full commit SHA).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what 'detailed information' includes (health stats, commits, authors), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

With no output schema but rich annotations and full schema descriptions, the description provides enough content-level detail (health stats, commits, authors) to understand what is returned. It could mention the effect of the 'full' parameter more explicitly, but it is largely complete.

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%: both 'version' and 'full' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (release), and the singular 'a release' distinguishes it from the sibling list_releases, though that alternative is not explicitly named. It enumerates the returned content, making the purpose concrete.

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?

Gives an implied context (fetching details for a known release) but does not say when to prefer this over list_releases or other issue tools, nor does it list prerequisites. No explicit when-not guidance.

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