selfhosted-sentry-mcp

get_stack_frames

Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract structured stack trace frames from a Sentry event to debug errors, with options to filter application-only frames and limit returned results.

Instructions

Extract structured stack trace frames from an event. Optimized for debugging.

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": {
      "project_slug": "<project_slug>",
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_stack_frames"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`event_id`	Yes	The event ID.
`max_frames`	No	Max frames to return (default: 50).
`in_app_only`	No	Filter to only application frames (default: false).
`project_slug`	Yes	The slug of the project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds little beyond the purpose statement: it does not explain frame ordering, missing debug symbols, filtering behavior, or other operational details.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is slightly vague and adds little, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema plus annotations cover most invocation needs. However, with no output schema, the description gives only a high-level return description ("structured stack trace frames") and omits frame shape, ordering, or truncation behavior.

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%, so event_id, project_slug, max_frames, and in_app_only are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond those parameter definitions, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: extract stack trace frames from an event. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from related event-detail tools such as get_sentry_event_details.

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 phrase "Optimized for debugging" gives only vague context and does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling-tool routing guidance.

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