MCP Sentry

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.