Skip to main content
Glama
MCP-100

MCP Sentry

by MCP-100
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.6.2

  • Disambiguation1/5

    The two tools are essentially indistinguishable in purpose. Both descriptions are identical, listing the exact same use cases (investigate errors, access stacktraces, analyze patterns, get timing info, review counts). An agent would have no way to determine when to use get_list_issues versus get_sentry_issue since they appear to serve the same function.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both tools follow a similar get_ prefix pattern, which provides some consistency. However, the naming is confusingly similar (get_list_issues vs get_sentry_issue) rather than clearly differentiated, and the verb-noun structure is mixed (list_issues vs sentry_issue).

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this feels severely under-scoped for a Sentry integration. A production error monitoring system would typically need tools for creating issues, updating statuses, searching/filtering, accessing events, or managing projects. Two tools is too few to cover meaningful workflows.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for Sentry's domain. There are no tools for creating issues, updating issue status (resolve/ignore), searching across projects, accessing event details, managing alerts, or any administrative functions. The two existing tools appear redundant rather than complementary.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully describes the data accessed (stacktraces, counts, first/last occurrence dates) but omits safety classification (read-only vs. destructive), authentication requirements, or rate limiting constraints.

    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?

    Well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by actionable bullet points. Each of the five use-case bullets earns its place by clarifying distinct capabilities. Slightly verbose but efficiently organized.

    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?

    Given the simple 2-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the returned information (stacktraces, status, counts) within the text. Missing only safety/permission context which would normally appear in annotations.

    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% for both 'project_slug' and 'organization_slug', establishing a baseline of 3. The description references 'by project slug' confirming the primary filter, but does not add format constraints, examples, or explain the optional nature of parameters (required: [] in schema).

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description opens with a specific verb-resource combination ('Retrieve and analyze Sentry issues') and scopes it to 'by project slug'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_sentry_issue' by emphasizing aggregate capabilities like 'patterns and frequencies' and 'error counts' vs. single-issue retrieval.

    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 'Use this tool when you need to:' preamble followed by five specific scenarios (investigate crashes, access stacktraces, analyze patterns, etc.) provides excellent contextual guidance. Lacks an explicit pointer to sibling 'get_sentry_issue' for single-issue lookups, preventing a perfect score.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses what data is returned (stacktraces, frequencies, first/last occurrence, status) but omits operational concerns: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or privacy implications of accessing production errors.

    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?

    Well-structured with purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by explicit usage guidelines. Bullet points are specific and non-redundant. Slightly verbose compared to minimalist ideal, but every sentence serves distinct selection or invocation guidance.

    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 single-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, description adequately hints at return value structure by listing accessible data types (stacktraces, error patterns, temporal metadata). Missing only operational edge cases; sufficient for agent to understand tool capabilities and expected output richness.

    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% (single parameter 'issue_id_or_url' fully documented). Description mentions 'by ID or URL' which aligns with schema but adds no additional semantic value such as format examples, validation rules, or distinction between ID vs URL input behavior. Baseline 3 appropriate for complete schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Opens with specific verb+noun combination ('Retrieve and analyze a Sentry issue') and clearly identifies the lookup method ('by ID or URL'). Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'get_list_issues' by emphasizing singular issue retrieval versus listing.

    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?

    Explicitly prefixes usage scenarios with 'Use this tool when you need to:' followed by five specific bulleted contexts (production errors, stacktraces, error patterns, temporal data, counts/status). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, but sibling tool name provides clear contrast.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-sentry MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-sentry MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/MCP-100/mcp-sentry'

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