Sentry MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting different resources like projects, issues, events, replays, and errors, with clear boundaries. However, 'get_sentry_event' and 'list_issue_events' could be slightly confusing as both relate to issue events, though the former retrieves a specific event while the latter lists events, which is clarified in descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as 'create_project', 'list_projects', 'get_sentry_issue', and 'search_errors_in_file'. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Sentry monitoring and debugging server. It covers core operations like project management, issue and event retrieval, error searching, and setup without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides strong coverage for monitoring and debugging in Sentry, including CRUD-like operations for projects and issues, event listing, error searching, and setup. A minor gap is the lack of tools for updating or deleting resources, such as updating issue status or deleting projects, but agents can still perform key workflows effectively.
Average 2.9/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a project but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), potential side effects (e.g., affecting billing or team access), rate limits, or error handling. The added context about tracking deployments/releases/health metrics is useful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details.
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 that front-loads the core action ('Create a new project in Sentry') and adds supplementary context. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from benefits) for optimal clarity.
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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency for a mutating tool, provides no usage guidelines, and doesn't address output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'organization_slug' and 'team_slug'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added value by clarifying parameter interactions.
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 ('Create a new project') and resource ('in Sentry'), with additional context about what the project enables ('Track deployments, releases, and health metrics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'setup_sentry' by focusing on creation rather than listing or configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'setup_sentry' might overlap in some contexts).
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization/team), compare to sibling tools like 'setup_sentry' (which might handle initial Sentry configuration), or specify scenarios where creation is appropriate versus listing existing projects. Usage is implied only through the action verb 'Create'.
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 carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves an event but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context for a tool with 5 parameters.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and key requirements without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters that retrieves specific data. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The description should provide more context about the operation's nature and expected outcomes.
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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'issue_id_or_url' interacts with 'organization_slug'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'specific Sentry event from an issue', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_events' or 'get_sentry_issue', which reduces clarity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus listing events.
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 mentions 'Requires issue ID/URL and event ID', which implies prerequisites but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_issue_events' for browsing events or 'get_sentry_issue' for issue-level data. No context about when-not scenarios or comparisons to siblings is provided.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieve and analyze' but doesn't specify what analysis entails, whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and the key input types, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, analysis details) or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and 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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'issue URL or ID' for the first parameter, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb 'retrieve and analyze' and the resource 'a Sentry issue', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sentry_event' or 'list_issue_events', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get_sentry_issue' over 'get_sentry_event' or 'list_issue_events', leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at read-only behavior by using 'list' and 'view', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, leaving significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from features. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on return values, failing to provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively beyond basic purpose. This is a significant gap for a tool with moderate complexity.
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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the impact of 'view' or 'format' choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('list', 'view') and resources ('error events from a specific Sentry project'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_events' or 'search_errors_in_file', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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. It mentions viewing 'recent errors, frequency patterns, and occurrence timestamps' but doesn't specify context, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'list_issue_events' or 'search_errors_in_file', leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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 carries full burden. It mentions analyzing event details, metadata, and patterns, which hints at output behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the issue doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately concise with two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second adds context about what can be analyzed. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, though the second sentence could be more directly tied to tool usage rather than analysis interpretation.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns complex event data, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'events' encompass, what format the analysis takes, or provide any behavioral context. For a tool with 4 parameters and likely rich output, more completeness is needed to help an agent understand what to expect.
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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('events for a specific Sentry issue'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_project_issues' or 'list_error_events_in_project' by specifying issue-level events. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_sentry_event' or 'get_sentry_issue', which could provide more precise differentiation.
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 'get_sentry_event' (which might fetch a single event) or 'list_error_events_in_project' (which operates at project level). It mentions analyzing details, metadata, and patterns, but this is more about output interpretation than usage context. No explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisites are included.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the tool lists replays for monitoring purposes, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), or what the output looks like. The description is too brief to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with 12 parameters.
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 concise with two clear sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality. The first sentence states the action and target, while the second explains the purpose of replays. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with critical information about when to use this versus sibling tools.
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?
For a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., stats_period vs start/end), doesn't describe the output format or structure, and doesn't provide context about what 'replays' actually are beyond the brief monitoring mention. The agent would need to infer too much from just the description and schema.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions monitoring aspects which relate to what replays contain, but doesn't explain how parameters like 'query', 'sort', or 'view' affect the monitoring experience. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('replays from a Sentry organization'), providing a specific purpose. It also mentions the monitoring aspects (user sessions, interactions, errors, experience issues) which adds context about what replays contain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_error_events_in_project' or 'list_issue_events' which might also involve monitoring.
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. There are several sibling tools that also list or search for data (list_error_events_in_project, list_issue_events, list_projects, search_errors_in_file), but the description doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate versus those others. It only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.
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 carries full burden. It mentions monitoring capabilities but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating monitoring details, but there's no wasted text.
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 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and output details, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer 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 schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of 'view' or 'format' choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('issues from a Sentry project'), and mentions what can be monitored (status, severity, frequency, timing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_error_events_in_project' by focusing on issues rather than events, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_sentry_issue' which retrieves a single issue.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sentry_issue' (for single issues) or 'list_error_events_in_project' (for events). The description mentions monitoring aspects but doesn't specify use cases 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 carries the full burden. It mentions 'accessible' projects, hinting at permission-based filtering, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.
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 that front-loads the core action ('List accessible Sentry projects') and adds useful detail about included data. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a list tool. It specifies the resource and data fields but lacks details on behavior, constraints, or output format. It compensates somewhat with clarity but falls short of being fully informative for agent invocation.
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 schema fully documents all parameters (organization_slug, view, format) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('accessible Sentry projects'), and specifies what information is included ('project slugs, IDs, status, settings, features, and organization details'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'list_organization_replays', which also list resources but focus on different entities.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization slug), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'create_project'. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a search operation ('Search for Sentry errors') which implies a read-only, non-destructive action, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage context or behavioral details without sacrificing brevity.
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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns or how it behaves, but it meets the bare minimum for a search tool.
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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'file path or filename' and 'search', but these are already covered by the 'file_identifier' and 'identifier_type' parameters in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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's purpose: 'Search for Sentry errors occurring in a specific file' with the verb 'search' and resource 'Sentry errors'. It specifies the scope 'in a specific file' and distinguishes the search target as 'file path or filename'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_sentry_issue', which might also involve error/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. It mentions 'Find all issues related to a particular file path or filename' but doesn't clarify how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_sentry_issue', which might list or retrieve issues without file-based filtering. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Set up Sentry' and returns a 'dsn and instructions', but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., creating new resources), rate limits, or error handling. For a setup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 that front-loads the key action and outcome without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it into clearer clauses for action and result, but overall it is concise and well-formed.
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 complexity of a setup operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and what the 'dsn and instructions' output entails, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The description does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the existing documentation.
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 ('Set up Sentry for a project') and the outcome ('returning a dsn and instructions for setup'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'list_projects', which might involve similar project-related operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific setup tool.
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, such as 'create_project' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios where setup is needed, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.
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 carries full burden. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. The phrase 'maps short IDs to issue details' is somewhat vague about the actual operation.
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?
Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second elaborates on what's retrieved. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the main functionality.
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?
For a read operation with 3 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about authentication, error handling, or return format. Given no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for the agent.
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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain short ID format beyond the schema's example, doesn't clarify organization_slug relationships). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'issue details' with the specific mechanism 'using its short ID'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ID resolution rather than listing/searching (e.g., list_project_issues, search_errors_in_file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_sentry_issue which might also retrieve issue details.
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 you have a short ID and need issue details, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_sentry_issue or list_project_issues. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's specific niche.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/codyde/mcp-sentry-ts'

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