Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Leee62

Sentry Issues MCP

by Leee62
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

セントリー発行MCP

中国語の文書英語

説明

⚠️ バージョン1.0.5以降、issuesの取得は非推奨となりました。レスポンスの構造がイベントAPIと非常に似ているため、冗長とみなされます。

これはセントリーの MCP の問題です。
問題または問題のリストを取得するための 2 つのツールをサポートしています。
LLM に Res の分析を任せることもできますし、自分で行うこともできます。

Related MCP server: MCP Sentry

特徴

  • EZサイズ

  • 簡単に理解できる

  • EZタイニー

ツール

  • 単一イベントを取得する

    • イベントの詳細情報を取得します。小さいモードではスタック情報が返され、大きいモードではすべての情報が返されます。

    • 入力:

      • url_or_id: セントリーイベント URL またはセントリーイベント ID

      • organization_id_or_slug: Sentry 組織 ID またはスラッグ。未定義でも構いません。

      • project_id_or_slug: SentryプロジェクトのIDまたはスラッグ。未定義でも構いません。

      • モード: tiny または huge、未定義になる場合があります

  • get_project_events

    • イベントのリストを取得します。小さいモードでは ID とタイトルが返され、大きいモードではすべての情報が返されます。

    • 入力:

      • project_id_or_slug: Sentry プロジェクト ID またはスラッグ

      • organization_id_or_slug: Sentry 組織 ID またはスラッグ。未定義でも構いません。

      • モード: tiny または huge、未定義になる場合があります

クイックスタート

これはMCPサーバー構成です

  "mcpServers": {
    "sentry-issue-mcp": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "sentry-issues-mcp@latest"
      ],
      "env": {
        "SENTRY_HOST": "<your_sentry_host>",
        "SENTRY_ORG": "<your_sentry_org>",
        "SENTRY_PROJ": "<your_sentry_proj>",
        "SENTRY_USER_TOKEN": "<your_sentry_user_token>"
      }
    }
  }

場合

  • LLMにURLまたはIDで1つの問題を分析するよう依頼する

    1. 「問題を分析し、その理由と解決方法を教えてください。{sentry_issue_url}」と入力してください。

    2. LLMがSMART🧠ならツールを呼び出す

    3. 結果が得られます

  • LLM に今日の最も危険な問題を見つけるように依頼します (PS: 監視期間のデフォルト値は「24 時間」です)

    1. 「今日最も危険な問題を見つけ、その理由と解決方法を教えてください」と入力してください

    2. LLMがSMART🧠ならツールを呼び出す

    3. 結果が得られます

ライセンス

マサチューセッツ工科大学

Available Tools

2 tools
get_project_eventsC

get issue events by inputting sentry organization id or slug and sentry project name or slug

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_id_or_slugNosentry organization id or slug, it can be undefined
project_id_or_slugNosentry project name or slug, it can be undefined
modeNomode for output, it can be undefined, it used to control LLM token usagetiny

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions what inputs to provide but doesn't describe what 'get issue events' actually returns (list of events? what format?), pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the core purpose from the parameter requirements for better readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'issue events' are, what format they're returned in, whether there are pagination considerations, or how the 'mode' parameter affects the output. The agent would struggle to understand what to expect from this tool invocation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions organization and project inputs but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The 'mode' parameter with its 'tiny'/'huge' enum values controlling LLM token usage is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 clearly states the action ('get issue events') and the required inputs (organization and project identifiers), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_single_event' - we don't know if this tool returns multiple events vs a single event, or how they differ in scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_single_event'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or alternative approaches. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

get_single_eventC

get issue event by inputting sentry issue event url or sentry issue event id

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
url_or_idYessentry issue event url or sentry issue event id
organization_id_or_slugNosentry organization id or slug, it can be undefined
project_id_or_slugNosentry project name or slug, it can be undefined
modeNomode for output, it can be undefined, it used to control LLM token usagetiny

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves an issue event but doesn't describe what an 'issue event' contains, whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or any performance considerations. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'issue event' is, what data it returns, or how the 'mode' parameter affects output. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'url_or_id' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'mode' with its enum values or optional fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'get issue event by inputting sentry issue event url or sentry issue event id'. It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('issue event'), and required input format, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_project_events'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_events'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget_project_events
    • First observedget_single_event
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_project_events retrieves multiple events for a project, while get_single_event retrieves a single event by its URL or ID. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_project_events, get_single_event) with clear, descriptive names that indicate their specific functions. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for a Sentry Issues domain, as it lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or listing issues, which are core to issue management workflows. This minimal set limits functionality significantly.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for Sentry Issues, covering only event retrieval. It misses critical operations such as listing issues, creating issues, updating issue status, or deleting issues, leaving agents unable to perform basic issue lifecycle tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • MCP Sentry

    MCP-100
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that retrieves and analyzes Sentry.io issues, allowing users to inspect error reports, stacktraces, and debugging information from their Sentry account.
    2
    22
    -

  • Sentry MCP Server

    javaDer
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server that connects to Sentry.io or self-hosted Sentry instances to retrieve and analyze error reports, stack traces, and debugging information.
    2
    -

  • Sentry MCP Server

    zereight
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables interaction with Sentry's error tracking platform to fetch and manage issue details, events, and project information through the Sentry API.
    4
    72
    1
    -

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Leee62/sentry-issues-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server