Skip to main content
Glama
c20020207

AppSignal MCP Server

by c20020207

señal de aplicación mcp

Un servidor MCP (Protocolo de contexto de modelo) para conectarse a AppSignal y obtener información de incidentes.

Instalación

npm install -g mcp-appsignal

Related MCP server: Sentry MCP Server

Uso

Línea de comandos

# Set environment variables
export APPSIGNAL_API_TOKEN=your-api-token
export APPSIGNAL_APP_ID=your-app-id

# Run the server
mcp-appsignal

Con el cursor

Añade a la configuración del cursor:

{
  "mcp": {
    "servers": {
      "appsignal": {
        "command": "npx",
        "args": ["mcp-appsignal"],
        "env": {
          "APPSIGNAL_API_TOKEN": "your-api-token",
          "APPSIGNAL_APP_ID": "your-app-id"
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Características

  • Conectarse a la API GraphQL de AppSignal

  • Obtener detalles de incidentes y muestras

  • Listar y buscar incidentes

  • Proporcionar indicaciones para analizar incidentes y sugerir soluciones.

Recursos de MCP

  • appsignal://incident/{incidentNumber} - Obtener detalles sobre un incidente específico

  • appsignal://incident/{incidentNumber}/sample/{sampleId?} - Obtener una muestra para un incidente específico

  • appsignal://incidents - Lista todos los incidentes

Herramientas MCP

  • getIncident - Obtener un incidente por número

  • getIncidentSample : obtiene una muestra para un incidente específico

  • listIncidents - Lista de incidentes con filtrado opcional

Indicaciones de MCP

  • analyzeIncident : analiza un incidente y proporciona información.

  • suggestFixes - Sugerir correcciones para un error

Licencia

Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT)

Available Tools

3 tools
getIncidentD
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
incidentNumberYes

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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.

Conciseness1/5

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.

Completeness1/5

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.

Parameters1/5

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.

Purpose1/5

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.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
incidentNumberYes
sampleIdNo

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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.

Conciseness1/5

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.

Completeness1/5

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.

Parameters1/5

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.

Purpose1/5

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.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
stateNo

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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.

Conciseness1/5

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.

Completeness1/5

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.

Parameters1/5

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.

Purpose1/5

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.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedgetIncident
    • First observedgetIncidentSample
    • First observedlistIncidents

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A 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.
    2
    22
    -
  • F
    license
    B
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    A 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.
    11
    12
    -
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables interaction with Waroom API to retrieve incident information and postmortem details through a standardized protocol.
    26
    16 npm
    1
    MIT