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 correctly identifies this as a mutation operation ('Mark as resolved'), but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, whether the resolution is reversible, what happens to the issue after resolution, or potential rate limits. The description adds some context about timing but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the action, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks important context about what 'resolved' means in the system, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but has clear gaps for a mutation operation.

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 single parameter 'issue_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or constraints. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Mark as resolved') and target resource ('GlitchTip issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_glitchtip_issue' or 'get_glitchtip_issues' beyond the obvious action difference, so it doesn't reach the highest tier of sibling differentiation.

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 contextual guidance about when to use this tool ('after you've fixed the bug causing the error'), which helps the agent understand the appropriate timing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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