sentry-mcp-server

list_projects

List all projects in a Sentry organization, returning each project's slug, name, platform, ID, and team assignments.

Instructions

List all projects in a Sentry organization. Returns project slug, name, platform, id, and team assignments.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "org": "<org>"
    },
    "name": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org`	Yes	Organization slug (the part after 'sentry.io/' in the URL, e.g. 'acme')
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response. Omit for first page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (project slug, name, platform, id, and team assignments), which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, nor does it explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or any other behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and contains zero unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it misses pagination context despite the cursor parameter, which could mislead an agent into expecting all results in one response. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both org and cursor. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all projects in a Sentry organization, with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('projects'), and scope ('in a Sentry organization'). It also lists the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_organizations and list_teams.

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 the user needs to list projects, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_teams or list_organizations. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server