Skip to main content
Glama
HieuAnh87

selfhosted-sentry-mcp

by HieuAnh87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_issues

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and list self-hosted Sentry issues across projects using Sentry query syntax; sort, limit, and paginate results for triage.

Instructions

List issues using Sentry search query syntax (e.g., "is:unresolved environment:production"). More powerful than list_sentry_issues which is project-scoped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoReturn Sentry's full issue objects (stats, annotations, flags) instead of the compact triage fields (default: false).
sortNoSort order (default: date).date
limitNoMax issues (1-100, default: 25).
queryNoSentry search query (e.g., "is:unresolved environment:production level:error").
cursorNoPagination cursor (next_cursor from a previous call).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / cursor / description
      Previous value: -"Pagination cursor."New value: +"Pagination cursor (next_cursor from a previous call)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / full
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return Sentry's full issue objects (stats, annotations, flags) instead of the compact triage fields (default: false).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the Sentry-query capability but says nothing about return shape, pagination behavior via cursor, or default scope when query is empty, which the missing output schema leaves unaddressed.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the sibling comparison. Efficient, though the second sentence could carry one more useful clause without bloat.

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?

For a five-parameter search tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers purpose and sibling routing but leaves the default behavior with an empty query, the nature of the returned list, and pagination flow unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 full/full-object vs. compact triage, sort enum, limit bounds and cursor are all documented in the schema. The description's query example merely duplicates the schema's example, adding no new parameter meaning; 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+resource (list issues) and names the confusable sibling list_sentry_issues, clarifying that this one is not project-scoped. The exact scope (org-wide vs. a default project) is left implicit, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a usable selection axis by calling itself 'more powerful than list_sentry_issues which is project-scoped', implying this is the tool for cross-project / query-driven search. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use rule (e.g., what to do when query is omitted) or a when-not-to-use exclusion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools