Sentry MCP

Official

by getsentry

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

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, such as create_project vs. list_projects, but get_error_details and search_errors_in_file could potentially overlap in error investigation scenarios, which might cause slight confusion. Overall, the boundaries are clear with only minor ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern using snake_case, such as create_project, list_organizations, and search_errors_in_file. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable for a Sentry-focused server, covering core operations like project, team, and error management. However, it feels slightly thin as it lacks update or delete operations, which are common in such domains.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers creation and listing for projects, teams, and organizations, plus error retrieval and search, but it has notable gaps. Missing update/delete tools for projects and teams, and no error resolution or comment features, limit full lifecycle coverage for Sentry's domain.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 64 of 88 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 138 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 2, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.
View related servers

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 full burden. It mentions the outcome ('giving you access to a new SENTRY_DSN') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 sentences and a bullet point, front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids redundancy, though the bullet point could be integrated more smoothly for better flow.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects) and return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate 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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as it doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new project in Sentry'), specifying it provides access to a new SENTRY_DSN. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_team' beyond mentioning the resource type, missing a direct comparison.
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 provides a bullet point stating 'Use this tool when you need to: - Create a new project in a Sentry organization,' which implies context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., 'list_projects' for viewing existing ones) or prerequisites like required permissions.
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 full burden but only states it 'creates' a new team. It lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage guideline. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be more efficiently integrated. There's minimal waste, but it's not perfectly 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., team ID, success confirmation), error handling, or dependencies like required permissions. For a create operation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 both parameters ('name' and 'organizationSlug') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing 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 action ('Create a new team') and resource ('in Sentry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' beyond mentioning 'team' vs 'project', which is implicit but not explicit about when to choose one over the other.
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 provides a bullet point stating 'Use this tool when you need to: Create a new team in a Sentry organization', which gives basic context. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_teams' for checking existing teams, leaving some ambiguity about usage scenarios.
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 the scope ('all organizations that the user has access to'), which is useful, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bullet point for usage. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the bullet point could be integrated more seamlessly into the flow.
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, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list of objects with fields) or any constraints, which could hinder agent effectiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here, but since there are no params, it doesn't compensate for any gaps. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters.
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 ('organizations'), specifying that it returns all organizations the user has access to in Sentry. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' and 'list_teams' by focusing on organizations, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.
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 provides a usage scenario ('when you need to view all organizations in Sentry'), which gives implied context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., when to use 'list_projects' instead), leaving some guidance gaps.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a retrieval/read operation, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when organizationSlug isn't provided. The description is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with specific usage scenarios. There's minimal wasted verbiage.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated, or what authentication context is required. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
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 the single parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
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 'list of projects in Sentry', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_organizations' or 'list_teams' beyond mentioning projects specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to view all projects in a Sentry organization'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or provide alternatives for more specific project queries that might be needed.
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 only states the basic action ('List all teams') without mentioning behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no organization slug is provided (defaulting to the first org). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an API.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by concise usage guidelines in bullet points. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete for a basic list operation. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or dependencies (e.g., needing an organization slug from 'list_organizations'), which could be helpful for an agent in this context.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'organizationSlug' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all teams in an organization in Sentry'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_organizations' or 'list_projects' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with bullet points specifying when to use this tool ('View all teams in a Sentry organization'), which gives clear context. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'list_organizations' first to get the organization slug), so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when neither issueId nor issueUrl is provided despite stating one MUST be provided.
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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of usage scenarios. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The constraint about required parameters is efficiently integrated into the first sentence.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It clearly explains the purpose and usage scenarios, but lacks details about authentication, error responses, rate limits, and the format/structure of the returned error details. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more information about what the tool returns.
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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds the critical constraint that 'Either issueId or issueUrl MUST be provided,' which provides important semantic context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between these parameters or provide additional context about the organizationSlug default behavior beyond what's in the schema.
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 specific action ('Retrieve error details'), resource ('from Sentry'), and scope ('for a specific Issue ID'). It explicitly mentions what information is included ('stacktrace and error message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_errors_in_file which appears to search rather than retrieve details for a specific issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage scenarios ('when you need to investigate a specific production error' and 'access detailed error information and stacktraces from Sentry'), giving good context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare it to alternatives like search_errors_in_file, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 adds valuable context about the search being 'suffix based' and preferring parent folders for subfolders/common filenames, which helps the agent understand how to structure queries. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.
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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence explaining the tool's function, followed by a usage guidelines section. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the bulleted list could be slightly more concise.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the search behavior and usage scenarios well, though it could benefit from mentioning what the output looks like since there's no output 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('search for errors') and resources ('in a specific file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on file-based error searching rather than project/team management or general listing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with a bulleted list of when to use this tool ('search for production errors in a specific file', 'analyze error patterns', 'find recent/frequent errors'), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/getsentry/sentry-mcp'

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