selfhosted-sentry-mcp

update_sentry_issue_status

Idempotent

Set a Sentry issue's status to resolved, ignored, or unresolved using its numeric ID or short ID to streamline triage on self-hosted Sentry.

Instructions

Update the status of a Sentry issue. Returns the issue id, short ID, title and new status.

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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_sentry_issue_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	New status.
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (issue id, short ID, title, new status), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions or side effects beyond what annotations 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 with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the return info follows. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so naming the returned fields compensates usefully, and the simple two-parameter shape is fully covered by the schema. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance against the bulk sibling.

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 both parameters and the status enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update the status of a Sentry issue.' An agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from the sibling bulk_update_issues, so it stops 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With bulk_update_issues and merge_issues among the siblings, the description gives no signal about when this single-issue variant is preferred over the bulk one.

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