selfhosted-sentry-mcp

list_issue_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all events for a specific issue to track error occurrences over time. Supports pagination and full details.

Instructions

List all events for a specific issue. Useful to see all occurrences of an error over time.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_issue_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`full`	No	Include full event details (default: false).
`limit`	No	Max events (1-100, default: 25).
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor.
`issue_id`	Yes	Numeric issue ID or short ID (e.g. PROJ-1A2).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / issue_id / description

Previous value: -"The ID of the issue."New value: +"Numeric issue ID or short ID (e.g. PROJ-1A2)."

First observedv1.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds usage context about occurrences over time but does not disclose additional behavioral details beyond what annotations and the schema provide.

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 core action and followed by a concise usage note. There is no wasted text.

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 read-only listing tool with fully described parameters and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention pagination or how full event details differ, but the schema already covers those parameters.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("List all events") scoped to a specific issue, which distinguishes it from issue-listing tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_error_events or get_sentry_event_details, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence gives clear usage context: viewing all occurrences of an error over time. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_error_events or get_sentry_event_details.

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