Bugsink MCP Server

get_release

Retrieve detailed information about a specific software release by providing its unique ID, enabling error tracking and analysis.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific release

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": {
      "release_id": "<release_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`release_id`	Yes	The release ID (UUID) to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Feb 1, 2026

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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in data retrieval.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, error scenarios, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a retrieval tool in a context with multiple siblings, more context is needed to guide 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 'release_id' well-documented in the schema as a UUID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific release', which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance parameter understanding, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific release'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_releases' or 'get_event', which would require more specificity for 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid release_id) or contrast with related tools like 'list_releases' for browsing or 'get_event' for different resource types, leaving usage context unclear.

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

Deploy Server