F
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceA 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
-
AppSignal MCP Server
by c20020207
mcp-appsignal
Сервер MCP (Model Context Protocol) для подключения к AppSignal и получения информации об инцидентах.
Установка
npm install -g mcp-appsignalRelated MCP server: Sentry MCP Server
Использование
Командная строка
# Set environment variables
export APPSIGNAL_API_TOKEN=your-api-token
export APPSIGNAL_APP_ID=your-app-id
# Run the server
mcp-appsignalС курсором
Добавьте в настройки курсора:
{
"mcp": {
"servers": {
"appsignal": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["mcp-appsignal"],
"env": {
"APPSIGNAL_API_TOKEN": "your-api-token",
"APPSIGNAL_APP_ID": "your-app-id"
}
}
}
}
}Функции
Подключитесь к API GraphQL AppSignal
Получить сведения об инциденте и образцы
Список и поиск инцидентов
Предоставлять подсказки для анализа инцидентов и предложения исправлений
Ресурсы МКП
appsignal://incident/{incidentNumber}— Получить сведения о конкретном инцидентеappsignal://incident/{incidentNumber}/sample/{sampleId?}— Получить образец для определенного инцидентаappsignal://incidents— список всех инцидентов
Инструменты МКП
getIncident— получить инцидент по номеруgetIncidentSample— получение образца для определенного инцидентаlistIncidents— список инцидентов с возможностью фильтрации
Подсказки MCP
analyzeIncident- Анализ инцидента и предоставление информацииsuggestFixes— предложить исправления ошибки
Лицензия
Массачусетский технологический институт
Available Tools
3 toolsgetIncidentD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incidentNumber | Yes |
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incidentNumber | Yes | ||
| sampleId | No |
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No |
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.
3 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
getIncident - First observed
getIncidentSample - First observed
listIncidents
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
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 comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Related MCP Servers
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.1112-- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables interaction with Waroom API to retrieve incident information and postmortem details through a standardized protocol.2616 npm1MIT
DevRev MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseBqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables searching, retrieving, creating, and updating issues and tickets using DevRev APIs.1610MIT