Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sentry-mcp-server

sentry-mcp-server

by friendlygeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

list_releases

Retrieve Sentry organization releases with version, name, dates, new groups, and authors. Search and paginate to find specific releases.

Instructions

List releases in a Sentry organization. Returns version, name, dateReleased, dateCreated, newGroups, and authors for each release.

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_releases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgYesOrganization slug (e.g. 'acme')
limitNoMaximum releases to return (default 25)
queryNoSearch query (e.g. 'v1.' to find all 1.x releases)
cursorNoPagination cursor. Omit for first page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the operation and returned fields, but it omits behavioral details like pagination via cursor, default limit of 25, and ordering. This is a moderate gap for a list tool.

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 short sentences, front-loads the main verb and resource, and includes only useful output-field information. No filler or redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with a schema covering all parameters and output fields listed in the description, this is largely complete. It lacks explicit pagination behavior and alternative-tool guidance, but these are minor given the schema and tool simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it simply states the operation and output fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('releases in a Sentry organization'), clarifying scope and clearly distinguishing this from the sibling 'get_release' tool. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies a listing use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as 'get_release'. It does not state any exclusions or mention pagination/query strategies, leaving usage largely implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools