Sentry MCP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.