sentry-mcp-server

list_teams

List teams in a Sentry organization, returning each team's ID, slug, name, member count, and membership status.

Instructions

List teams in a Sentry organization. Returns team id, slug, name, memberCount, and isMember.

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_teams"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org`	Yes	Organization slug (e.g. 'acme')
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor. Omit for first page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return fields (team id, slug, name, memberCount, isMember), which helps. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, or any auth requirements.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and includes return fields without any extraneous wording. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters, and the schema covers them fully. The description explains the return fields, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it omits usage context, pagination behavior, and any mention of when this tool should be preferred over siblings, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (org and cursor) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already contains, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'List teams in a Sentry organization', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions the return fields, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_projects or list_organizations, so it lacks sibling 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. It neither states when to use it (e.g., 'Use this to enumerate teams in an org') nor mentions any exclusions or alternative tools. There is no implied usage context beyond the basic function.

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

Deploy Server