Sentry MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.