sentry-investigator

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The set has two tools for creating Jira tickets from Sentry issues (create_jira_from_sentry and create_jira_ticket) that are nearly identical in purpose, causing ambiguity. Additionally, analyze_stack_trace and investigate_issue have some overlap in context analysis, though not exact duplicates.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but 'create_jira_from_sentry' introduces a preposition, and the two Jira creation tools use different naming structures despite similar functions, leading to inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools covering Sentry issue retrieval, analysis, and Jira ticket creation, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose without being too sparse or bloated.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover the primary workflow of investigating Sentry issues and creating Jira tickets, but there are minor gaps such as missing updates to tickets or listing Jira projects, and redundancy reduces overall completeness.
Average 3.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but omits details like whether it's safe, side effects, authorization needs, or response characteristics. Minimal transparency beyond the action.
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 with no wasted words. However, it might be too concise, missing important context that could be added without bloat.
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 the simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimal. It lacks context on what 'recent' means, default behavior, and how it fits with sibling tools. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.
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 ('Fetch recent issues') and the resource ('from Sentry'), with a purpose hint ('for investigation'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like `investigate_issue` or `analyze_stack_trace`.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The phrase 'for investigation' is vague and does not specify contextual prerequisites or when to choose this over sibling tools like `analyze_stack_trace`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'analyzes the codebase' but does not clarify what that entails (e.g., file reading, network calls), nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or output characteristics. This lack of detail hinders safe invocation.
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?
A single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's main action. It avoids unnecessary words but could be more structured to separate purpose, behavior, and output. Still concise for its length.
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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the agent receives (e.g., formatted output, code changes) and any runtime considerations. It only mentions 'explanations and fixes' vaguely. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is insufficient.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description merely restates the schema's purpose without adding new meaning or context (e.g., it does not explain how issue_id formats affect analysis or how codebase_path influences results). Baseline score 3 is appropriate.
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 investigates a Sentry issue by analyzing the codebase and providing explanations and fixes. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and hints at its purpose relative to sibling tools like analyze_stack_trace or get_sentry_issues, though it could more explicitly differentiate.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_stack_trace or get_sentry_issues. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the high-level action but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires network access, or what side effects (if any) occur.
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 concise sentence that effectively captures the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.
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 the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., matched code snippets, file paths). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format or behavior.
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% (both parameters are described in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, meeting the baseline score.
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's purpose: analyzing a stack trace and finding related code in the codebase. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on code analysis rather than ticket creation or 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 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 'investigate_issue' or 'create_jira_from_sentry'. It does not mention typical scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (a read operation) but lacks details about authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.
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, well-formed sentence that is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple but lacks any explanation of return values or behavior. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what 'issue types' refers to (e.g., a list of names/IDs). The absence of usage context also reduces completeness.
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 the single parameter 'project_key', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's description.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'available issue types', and the context 'for a Jira project'. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like create_jira_ticket and investigate_issue by being a read-only lookup operation.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when it should not be used. It simply states the function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions automatic linking and rich context but fails to explain what that entails (e.g., what gets linked, permissions needed, side effects). The behavioral details are insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is not verbose, but it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points). Acceptable for a short description.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, error conditions, or side effects. It does not mention what the tool returns or what happens upon successful creation. Completeness is lacking.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., implies auto-generated content from Sentry). No significant enhancement of parameter meaning.
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's purpose: create a Jira ticket from a Sentry issue with automatic linking and rich context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_jira_ticket (generic) and get_* tools (retrieval).
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 implies usage when a Sentry issue exists and a linked Jira ticket is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_jira_ticket for non-Sentry issues). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses creation and linking behavior, but does not mention side effects (e.g., failed linking, permissions required, or whether it modifies existing tickets). The 'link them together' statement is vague about bidirectional linkage.
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 of 13 words, front-loading the core purpose with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., using 'get_jira_boards' and 'get_issue_types' first). The schema hints at these, but the description adds little context.
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 extra meaning beyond the schema; the linking behavior is already implied by the 'sentry_issue_url' and 'sentry_issue_id' parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Jira ticket from a Sentry issue'), and clearly states the linking behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_stack_trace' and 'get_issue_types' by focusing on ticket creation with a Sentry connection.
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 implies the tool is for creating Jira tickets linked to Sentry issues, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'create_jira_from_sentry'). It lacks exclusion criteria or best-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not disclose traits such as read-only nature, pagination, data freshness, or authorization requirements.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what is returned (list of available Jira boards) but lacks details about the structure or fields of each board, which could be helpful for subsequent tool calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (input schema is empty). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the result set, which aligns with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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's purpose: retrieving available Jira boards specifically for ticket creation. The verb 'Get' and resource 'available Jira boards' are specific, and the context differentiates it from sibling tools like create_jira_ticket or get_issue_types.
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 implies usage before creating a ticket ('for ticket creation') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue_types. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with siblings.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![sentry-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vibe-Code-Agent/sentry-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vibe-Code-Agent/sentry-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sentry-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vibe-Code-Agent/sentry-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vibe-Code-Agent/sentry-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Vibe-Code-Agent/sentry-mcp'

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