Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bugsink MCP Server

Bugsink MCP Server

by j-shelfwood
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_team

Create a new team in Bugsink error tracking by specifying a name and visibility settings to organize projects and members.

Instructions

Create a new team

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe team name
visibilityNoTeam visibilitydiscoverable

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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. 'Create a new team' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response includes. It misses details like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Create a new team'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (name and visibility). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of visibility choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new team' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_release' beyond the resource type, which keeps it from 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_teams' or 'update_team'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the user needs specific permissions or when team creation is appropriate in workflows.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools