Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
crashwebsite-mcp

crashwebsite-mcp

Official
by PluginCrashReports
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_plugin

Register a new plugin under your team to track crash reports. Provide display name and bundle code (e.g., com.example.app).

Instructions

Register a new plugin under one of your teams. Requires owner/admin on that team.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "plugin_code": "<plugin_code>"
    },
    "name": "add_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDisplay name, e.g. "Identity".
teamNoWhich team (id or name) to add the plugin to. Omit if you manage only one team (see list_teams).
plugin_codeYesBundle id / code used to match crashes, e.g. "com.socalabs.identity".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authorization requirement (owner/admin) but does not mention output, idempotency, or side effects. For a creation tool, additional behavioral details would be beneficial.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and a key requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

The description is adequate given the tool's complexity, but it lacks information about return values, error handling, or potential side effects. While the authorization requirement is good, more completeness would improve usability.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool registers a new plugin under a team. It uses a specific verb 'Register' and resource 'plugin', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_plugin and list_plugins.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions the prerequisite of owner/admin role but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It provides minimal guidance beyond the basic usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools