Skip to main content
Glama
codyde
by codyde

resolve_short_id

Retrieve Sentry issue details, project context, and status using a short ID like PROJECT-123. Maps identifiers to comprehensive error tracking information for analysis.

Instructions

Retrieve details about an issue using its short ID. Maps short IDs to issue details, project context, and status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_slugYesThe slug of the organization the issue belongs to
short_idYesThe short ID of the issue to resolve (e.g., PROJECT-123)
formatNoOutput format (default: markdown)markdown

Implementation Reference

  • TypeScript interface defining the response structure for resolving a Sentry short ID, serving as the output schema for the 'resolve_short_id' tool.
    // Define interface for the short ID resolution response
    export interface ShortIdResolutionResponse {
      group: {
        annotations: any[];
        assignedTo: any | null;
        count: string;
        culprit: string;
        firstSeen: string;
        hasSeen: boolean;
        id: string;
        isBookmarked: boolean;
        isPublic: boolean;
        isSubscribed: boolean;
        lastSeen: string;
        level: string;
        logger: string | null;
        metadata: {
          title: string;
        };
        numComments: number;
        permalink: string;
        project: {
          id: string;
          name: string;
          slug: string;
        };
        shareId: string | null;
        shortId: string;
        status: string;
        statusDetails: Record<string, any>;
        subscriptionDetails: any | null;
        title: string;
        type: string;
        userCount: number;
      };
      groupId: string;
      organizationSlug: string;
      projectSlug: string;
      shortId: string;
    }
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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