GlitchTip MCP Server

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 describes what information is returned ('complete stacktrace, error counts, and timing information'), which adds useful context beyond the basic read operation implied by 'Get'. However, it doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling.

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 three concise sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, providing usage guidance, and listing returned information. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return details, though it could be enhanced with more behavioral context (e.g., error cases) or explicit sibling differentiation to achieve a perfect score.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'issue_id' as a numeric string. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Get detailed information') and resources ('GlitchTip issue'), including key details like 'full stacktrace'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_glitchtip_issues' by focusing on a single issue, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 context for when to use this tool ('when you need to investigate a specific error in detail'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_glitchtip_issues' (for listing issues). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'resolve_glitchtip_issue'.

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