Bugsink MCP Server

get_issue

Retrieve detailed information about a specific error issue from Bugsink error tracking, including stack traces and error events, by providing the issue ID.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific issue

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue_id`	Yes	The issue ID (UUID) to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Feb 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, format). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded, though it could be more informative given the lack of other context. Every word earns its place, but it's slightly under-specified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' returns, error cases, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'issue_id' well-documented in the schema as 'The issue ID (UUID) to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get detailed information about a specific issue' states the verb ('get') and resource ('issue'), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_event', 'get_project', or 'get_release'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_issues' for broader queries. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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

Deploy Server