AppSignal MCP Server
Connects to AppSignal's GraphQL API to fetch and analyze incident information, allowing users to list incidents, get incident details, retrieve error samples, and obtain AI-generated analysis and fix suggestions for application errors.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@AppSignal MCP Servershow me the latest incident"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
mcp-appsignal
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for connecting to AppSignal and fetching incident information.
Installation
npm install -g mcp-appsignalRelated MCP server: Sentry MCP Server
Usage
Command Line
# Set environment variables
export APPSIGNAL_API_TOKEN=your-api-token
export APPSIGNAL_APP_ID=your-app-id
# Run the server
mcp-appsignalWith Cursor
Add to your Cursor settings:
{
"mcp": {
"servers": {
"appsignal": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["mcp-appsignal"],
"env": {
"APPSIGNAL_API_TOKEN": "your-api-token",
"APPSIGNAL_APP_ID": "your-app-id"
}
}
}
}
}Features
Connect to AppSignal's GraphQL API
Fetch incident details and samples
List and search incidents
Provide prompts for analyzing incidents and suggesting fixes
MCP Resources
appsignal://incident/{incidentNumber}- Get details about a specific incidentappsignal://incident/{incidentNumber}/sample/{sampleId?}- Get a sample for a specific incidentappsignal://incidents- List all incidents
MCP Tools
getIncident- Fetch an incident by numbergetIncidentSample- Fetch a sample for a specific incidentlistIncidents- List incidents with optional filtering
MCP Prompts
analyzeIncident- Analyze an incident and provide insightssuggestFixes- Suggest fixes for an error
License
MIT
Available Tools
3 toolsgetIncidentD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incidentNumber | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getIncidentSampleD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incidentNumber | Yes | ||
| sampleId | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
listIncidentsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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.
3 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
getIncident - First observed
getIncidentSample - First observed
listIncidents
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The tools have distinct names (getIncident, getIncidentSample, listIncidents) suggesting different purposes, but without descriptions, it's unclear how 'getIncident' and 'getIncidentSample' differ—they could overlap in retrieving incident data. The 'listIncidents' is clearly separate for listing multiple incidents.
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase pattern with clear verb-noun combinations (getIncident, getIncidentSample, listIncidents). There are no deviations in naming style, making them predictable and readable.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for an incident management domain, as it likely lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or resolving incidents. This minimal set may not support complete agent workflows, indicating an under-scoped tool surface.
Inferred from the domain (incident management), there are significant gaps: no tools for creating, updating, deleting, or resolving incidents, and no coverage for related entities like alerts or metrics. This incomplete surface will likely cause agent failures in handling full incident lifecycles.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Model Context Protocol server for Studex tools, notifications, and profile integrations
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Selise Blocks Cloud integration
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA 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.222-

Sentry MCP Serverofficial
FlicenseBqualityFmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that lets AI assistants interact with the Sentry API to retrieve and analyze error data, manage projects, and monitor application performance.1111-- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables interaction with Waroom API to retrieve incident information and postmortem details through a standardized protocol.267 npm1MIT

DevRev MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseBqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables searching, retrieving, creating, and updating issues and tickets using DevRev APIs.1610MIT