Sentry MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.