selfhosted-sentry-mcp

list_releases

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve releases in your Sentry organization to link code deployments with error data. Filter by adoption status, search versions, sort by date or semantic version, and paginate results.

Instructions

List releases in the organization. Releases link code deployments to error data.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_releases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	Filter by adoption status.
`sort`	No	Sort order (default: date).	date
`limit`	No	Max releases (1-100, default: 25).
`query`	No	Optional search filter on release version.
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only conceptual framing and says nothing about pagination behavior (the cursor param), result caps, or default windowing that an agent would need to know.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the definition follows. It is efficient, though the second sentence is informational rather than actionable.

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?

Parameters are fully described by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, but with 27 siblings including get_release_details the description omits any routing guidance, leaving completeness merely adequate for a list tool.

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 five parameters (date, sort, limit, query, cursor) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 and resource ('List releases in the organization') and adds a useful one-line domain framing about what a release represents. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_release_details, which an agent could easily confuse with this listing tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_release_details or raw_sentry_api, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the vague 'in the organization' scope.

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