Context Bridge

get_sentry_issues

Retrieve recent unresolved issues from a Sentry project by slug to triage errors and prioritize fixes.

Instructions

Retrieves recent unresolved issues from a Sentry project.

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": {
      "project_slug": "<project_slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_sentry_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`project_slug`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It implies filtering (only unresolved, only recent) but says nothing about how 'recent' is bounded, result ordering, pagination, or permission requirements for a mutation-free read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage the description is too thin. The agent lacks the parameter and scoping detail needed to call it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description needed to compensate and does not. It never explains what form project_slug takes, nor that limit defaults to 5 and what it caps.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('recent unresolved issues from a Sentry project'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools dealing with GitHub Actions runs and Jira tickets. It does not explicitly name or rule out any alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other retrieval tools, no mention of prerequisites such as project access or authentication, and no statement of when not to use it. 'Recent unresolved' hints at a use case but leaves the agent to infer it.

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

Deploy Server